We must keep "those things" illegal!
It's all that stands between us and a total disintegration of society!
I mean, really!
You can't legalize Crocs or everyone will wear them!
The same goes for broccoli! If it were legal what would stop people from eating it? Think of the children!
No one would be able to resist something if it's not illegal. No one has any preferences of their own. Everyone will be wearing Crocs and distractedly munching broccoli instead of productively earning tax money for the state unless we make sure to not endorse such things- by keeping them illegal!
Where would it end?
.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Saturday, August 30, 2014
The questions borderists won't answer
How do borderists believe "we" can "protect our borders" without a huge police state (and the attendant expense met through "taxation")?
This is a question I have asked many times over the years and have never gotten a real answer to. For that matter, I have almost always had the question completely ignored, as if I never asked.
And, how do they believe a State powerful and omnipresent enough to "secure our borders" will not (eventually, if not immediately) use that power and omnipresence against them in ways they wouldn't like?
That's another question I have never gotten a real answer to.
I suspect that's because the real answers are too uncomfortable for the borderists to contemplate.
What do you think?
.
This is a question I have asked many times over the years and have never gotten a real answer to. For that matter, I have almost always had the question completely ignored, as if I never asked.
And, how do they believe a State powerful and omnipresent enough to "secure our borders" will not (eventually, if not immediately) use that power and omnipresence against them in ways they wouldn't like?
That's another question I have never gotten a real answer to.
I suspect that's because the real answers are too uncomfortable for the borderists to contemplate.
What do you think?
.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Shun the creeps to death
There is a family in the general area who are perfect candidates for shunning. I had never heard of them until a couple of weeks ago. They are known aggressors, and have been for a long time, according to people I know and trust. There have been plenty of other incidents, but this one finally seems to have brought them to a lot of people's attention (including mine).
I have other sources for my information- I would never accept the word of the sheriff or other enforcer without credible confirmation.
I do know that one of them has been a government school teacher, and has been fired for aggression more than once. I also know there were two more family members who were involved in this attack, but apparently are either "too young" to be mentioned in the report, or weren't charged for some reason.
I will not do business with these aggressors, nor will I do business with anyone I find out is employing them. I have heard rumors that at least one was fired due to this incident- I hope it's true. And I hope no one is foolish enough to ever hire these people again.
I already shun the enforcers in town- but of course, most people support those aggressors and my shunning makes no measurable difference. But these freelance thugs are a perfect example of people who should be shunned, and who probably could be. Effectively.
Added: On September 4, 2014, the paper finally announced the name of the other family member.
.
I have other sources for my information- I would never accept the word of the sheriff or other enforcer without credible confirmation.
I do know that one of them has been a government school teacher, and has been fired for aggression more than once. I also know there were two more family members who were involved in this attack, but apparently are either "too young" to be mentioned in the report, or weren't charged for some reason.
I will not do business with these aggressors, nor will I do business with anyone I find out is employing them. I have heard rumors that at least one was fired due to this incident- I hope it's true. And I hope no one is foolish enough to ever hire these people again.
I already shun the enforcers in town- but of course, most people support those aggressors and my shunning makes no measurable difference. But these freelance thugs are a perfect example of people who should be shunned, and who probably could be. Effectively.
Added: On September 4, 2014, the paper finally announced the name of the other family member.
.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Those wacky socialists and their "borders"
The whole "border" and "immigration" problem are socialist-created crises. Or perhaps I should say collectivist-created.
If there were no superstitious belief in the existence of "public property" there would be no problem. People could defend their own property as they saw fit. But socialist/collectivists believe the State can "own" property. They also believe the State can control how you use- and how or whether you can defend- your own property. (Which you also must pay a yearly ransom to keep.)
It's like dogs' territoriality gone berserk- where a hypothetical barking dog thinks it can claim everything around him, including half a continent, as his own- no matter the other dogs living there. Claiming other people's property is socialistic.
Offering "free stuff"- which is never free- is also socialistic. No matter who the intended recipient may be.
Many of the migrants are also socialistic- believing they are "owed" passage across other people's private property, and "free stuff" once they settle somewhere. So you have the clash of the socialists.
I have no dog in the fight other than the fact the socialists pretend to have the authority to prevent me from defending my life, liberty, and property from any of their kind.
.
If there were no superstitious belief in the existence of "public property" there would be no problem. People could defend their own property as they saw fit. But socialist/collectivists believe the State can "own" property. They also believe the State can control how you use- and how or whether you can defend- your own property. (Which you also must pay a yearly ransom to keep.)
It's like dogs' territoriality gone berserk- where a hypothetical barking dog thinks it can claim everything around him, including half a continent, as his own- no matter the other dogs living there. Claiming other people's property is socialistic.
Offering "free stuff"- which is never free- is also socialistic. No matter who the intended recipient may be.
Many of the migrants are also socialistic- believing they are "owed" passage across other people's private property, and "free stuff" once they settle somewhere. So you have the clash of the socialists.
I have no dog in the fight other than the fact the socialists pretend to have the authority to prevent me from defending my life, liberty, and property from any of their kind.
.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
The American "Anne Frank"
Is the American "Anne Frank" already among us? If so, how old might she be? And, who?
Might she be your daughter? Or the new baby you saw at the grocery store? Will she be your future granddaughter?
Who will she be hiding from? Cops already on the job, or some new enforcers hired "for the duration"?
Which "laws" will she and her family be hiding from? "Laws" which have already been passed? Or "laws" which have only been hinted at? "Laws" you oppose, or "laws" you might have even supported?
Who will be hiding her?
Who will be the one who exposes her to the cops?
Where will she meet her fate? And how?
You may roll your eyes at these questions. I hope in a few years you aren't suddenly remembering this and wishing you had taken it more seriously.
.
Might she be your daughter? Or the new baby you saw at the grocery store? Will she be your future granddaughter?
Who will she be hiding from? Cops already on the job, or some new enforcers hired "for the duration"?
Which "laws" will she and her family be hiding from? "Laws" which have already been passed? Or "laws" which have only been hinted at? "Laws" you oppose, or "laws" you might have even supported?
Who will be hiding her?
Who will be the one who exposes her to the cops?
Where will she meet her fate? And how?
You may roll your eyes at these questions. I hope in a few years you aren't suddenly remembering this and wishing you had taken it more seriously.
.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Liberty frees from control situations
Liberty frees from control situations
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 25, 2014)
Why would anyone want liberty? It requires responsibility, after all. It removes most of your opportunities to whine and blame everyone else when things go wrong. It leads to minding your own business. Where's the fun in that?
Well, there are benefits.
What is liberty? According to Thomas Jefferson, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
"Unobstructed action"- absolutely anything which doesn't violate the identical liberty of some other person, regardless of what the law says, is within your rights to do. No one has a right to rule your life or prevent you from offending them.
Another way to put it might be "Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.", which I have been told is a better translation of The Golden Rule.
Liberty frees you from feeling like you need to control other people's lives. Live your own life, and if someone encroaches on your life, liberty, or property, deal with them then and there.
Liberty lets you focus on your responsibility; not enforcing responsibility in others.
Instead of fretting over trivial matters, you can focus on what's really important. Is someone attacking the innocent or violating private property? No? Then forget it and move on. If they are, take steps to stop them.
The less time you spend worrying about what other people do, the more you will have to spend on being a better friend, relative, and neighbor.
You'll probably be less stressed out, too. It's a huge burden to feel what your neighbors do is somehow your business.
Liberty frees you from wringing your hands over situations you have no control over. Don't like what's going on in other countries? Can you actually do anything about it? If you can, should, and want to, go and do something. If not, concentrate on your own life. Don't force others to do what you think should be done, and don't force them to pay for it either. Meddling by those who think "something must be done" has caused the lion's share of political trouble.
You can also save a lot of time when you stop worrying whether something is "legal" and go straight to doing what is right.
It's easier to keep track of two or three universal laws than millions of federal, state, and local rules. How easy? Don't use force- or send others to use it on your behalf- against people who aren't attacking the innocent or violating private property, respect private property, and if you enter an agreement, do your best to keep it. Anyone can do that. Can't you?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 25, 2014)
Why would anyone want liberty? It requires responsibility, after all. It removes most of your opportunities to whine and blame everyone else when things go wrong. It leads to minding your own business. Where's the fun in that?
Well, there are benefits.
What is liberty? According to Thomas Jefferson, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
"Unobstructed action"- absolutely anything which doesn't violate the identical liberty of some other person, regardless of what the law says, is within your rights to do. No one has a right to rule your life or prevent you from offending them.
Another way to put it might be "Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.", which I have been told is a better translation of The Golden Rule.
Liberty frees you from feeling like you need to control other people's lives. Live your own life, and if someone encroaches on your life, liberty, or property, deal with them then and there.
Liberty lets you focus on your responsibility; not enforcing responsibility in others.
Instead of fretting over trivial matters, you can focus on what's really important. Is someone attacking the innocent or violating private property? No? Then forget it and move on. If they are, take steps to stop them.
The less time you spend worrying about what other people do, the more you will have to spend on being a better friend, relative, and neighbor.
You'll probably be less stressed out, too. It's a huge burden to feel what your neighbors do is somehow your business.
Liberty frees you from wringing your hands over situations you have no control over. Don't like what's going on in other countries? Can you actually do anything about it? If you can, should, and want to, go and do something. If not, concentrate on your own life. Don't force others to do what you think should be done, and don't force them to pay for it either. Meddling by those who think "something must be done" has caused the lion's share of political trouble.
You can also save a lot of time when you stop worrying whether something is "legal" and go straight to doing what is right.
It's easier to keep track of two or three universal laws than millions of federal, state, and local rules. How easy? Don't use force- or send others to use it on your behalf- against people who aren't attacking the innocent or violating private property, respect private property, and if you enter an agreement, do your best to keep it. Anyone can do that. Can't you?
.
The crescendo approaches
In every issue of the local papers I see government growth. More "authority" being stolen and asserted; new "laws" being invented; more heavy-handed enforcement being proposed.
Sure, it might look like healthy growth to those who don't look too closely, but it's actually the malignant run-away growth of something about to die. When I extrapolate this to every area around America- and the world- I see the end of the Age of Authority coming.
Statists may believe they can keep this up, but they can't. It will cause a collapse. I don't have a lot of pity for those who keep cheering this growth on. I just hope it isn't too hard on the liberty lovers (who are probably at least kind of expecting it).
.
Sure, it might look like healthy growth to those who don't look too closely, but it's actually the malignant run-away growth of something about to die. When I extrapolate this to every area around America- and the world- I see the end of the Age of Authority coming.
Statists may believe they can keep this up, but they can't. It will cause a collapse. I don't have a lot of pity for those who keep cheering this growth on. I just hope it isn't too hard on the liberty lovers (who are probably at least kind of expecting it).
.
Monday, August 25, 2014
You'd need to alter reality
I hate to be disagreeable, but...
You'll never convince me "government is necessary" because I don't need it.
You'll never convince me "government is good" because I see its inherent evil with my own two eyes.
Until you can change reality your words are as ridiculous to me as a person who tries to tell me I need to get cornea piercings, just because it would be cool. I know what is unnecessary and harmful to me, despite any arguments and pleas.
.
You'll never convince me "government is necessary" because I don't need it.
You'll never convince me "government is good" because I see its inherent evil with my own two eyes.
Until you can change reality your words are as ridiculous to me as a person who tries to tell me I need to get cornea piercings, just because it would be cool. I know what is unnecessary and harmful to me, despite any arguments and pleas.
.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Defending property rights of the "nonconformist"
Just as freedom of speech is meaningless until someone says something "offensive", so are property rights meaningless until someone decides to use their property in a way you disagree with.
Very few people need to defend the property rights of the guy with the neatly trimmed, water-wasting lawn, with nothing in it but a birdbath (cleaned daily to prevent mosquito propagation) in front of the perfectly maintained house. The only time you are likely to have to defend that person's property rights is when the State decides to steal his property via "eminent domain".
The person who needs others to rally to his defense is the guy whose idea of a great place to live differs from that of his neighbors.
Whether it's the tall weeds, the crop of Cannabis, the herd of goats, his "unlicensed" home-based business, or his prized, rusted Yugo in the middle of the front yard, the "community" wants to force him to keep his property they way "the majority" has decided it must be kept, and they will steal his property as punishment if he doesn't comply.
And this is the guy who will illustrate to observers whether you really believe in property rights, or if you just make a show as long as you aren't uncomfortable.
So which will it be? What kind of excuses will you come up with why this guy must give up his rights for "the common good"? Or, will you really defend him?
.
Very few people need to defend the property rights of the guy with the neatly trimmed, water-wasting lawn, with nothing in it but a birdbath (cleaned daily to prevent mosquito propagation) in front of the perfectly maintained house. The only time you are likely to have to defend that person's property rights is when the State decides to steal his property via "eminent domain".
The person who needs others to rally to his defense is the guy whose idea of a great place to live differs from that of his neighbors.
Whether it's the tall weeds, the crop of Cannabis, the herd of goats, his "unlicensed" home-based business, or his prized, rusted Yugo in the middle of the front yard, the "community" wants to force him to keep his property they way "the majority" has decided it must be kept, and they will steal his property as punishment if he doesn't comply.
And this is the guy who will illustrate to observers whether you really believe in property rights, or if you just make a show as long as you aren't uncomfortable.
So which will it be? What kind of excuses will you come up with why this guy must give up his rights for "the common good"? Or, will you really defend him?
.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
The use of a militia
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment
So, what happens when the militia failed in its duty to stop a standing army from being established? Because that's where we are, and a lot of people don't remember that quote and its implications. And they forget that the military is the mortal enemy of both America and the liberty of Americans (and anyone else they encounter). People need to remember. Or recognize the reality.
.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Is this The End for JPFO?
Claire Wolfe has unsettling news about a very important gun rights group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and its imminent destruction.
I posted the following on JPFO's Facebook page (it is awaiting "approval"- can you say "snowball's chance in Hell"? I hope I'm wrong- we shall see...)
ADDED: just found out the person who runs the JPFO Facebook page has an actual LIFE and doesn't just sit around waiting for people like me to post stuff. Amazing! ;) And, Thanks!
Now I will forward this to JPFO's board of directors. Why not put in your "2 cents", too?
Contact the JPFO board (Copied from Claire's blog, "just in case")
Executive Board Director
Robert (Bob) Meier — bob@rhmeier.com
Senior Board Member
Bruce Bell — boo3@ix.netcom.com
Board Member and Managing Director
Doug Schuett — jpfoscty@att.net
UPDATE: Yep. It was The End.
.
I posted the following on JPFO's Facebook page (it is awaiting "approval"- can you say "snowball's chance in Hell"? I hope I'm wrong- we shall see...)
ADDED: just found out the person who runs the JPFO Facebook page has an actual LIFE and doesn't just sit around waiting for people like me to post stuff. Amazing! ;) And, Thanks!
I have been a LIFE member of JPFO for several years. I have never been wealthy, and it was very hard to scrape up the dues, but I did so because of the "no-compromise" position Aaron [Zelman] and JPFO held.
So it pains me, but if the deal with Alan Gottlieb's SAF goes through I will publicly and loudly renounce my membership on my blog to all my readers. And I will tell everyone I know why I felt forced to do so.
There is an alternate plan, one which respects Aaron's legacy and my wishes for the group. JPFO doesn't have to be destroyed. It can be saved. Do it, because it's the right thing to do.
Now I will forward this to JPFO's board of directors. Why not put in your "2 cents", too?
Contact the JPFO board (Copied from Claire's blog, "just in case")
Executive Board Director
Robert (Bob) Meier — bob@rhmeier.com
Senior Board Member
Bruce Bell — boo3@ix.netcom.com
Board Member and Managing Director
Doug Schuett — jpfoscty@att.net
UPDATE: Yep. It was The End.
.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Ferguson, Missouri, Micheal Brown, and Darren Wilson
Other than a few comments on other sites I really haven't been saying much about Ferguson, Micheal Brown, and Darren Wilson.
Well, I guess I'll speak now.
First off, I don't need cops, so I don't want them doing anything on "my behalf". Period. Disband them all and send them home, and give their equipment and guns to the people who have been forced to pay for them.
Secondly- I don't want cops approaching and confronting people for any reason; not for walking down the middle of the traffic lanes or anything else. If someone, insanely, calls the cops for a specific reason, then I suppose it's different as long as the cop goes straight to the person who called and leaves everyone else alone on his way. But, otherwise, cops should stay in the donut shop and out of the community at large.
Thirdly- if anyone is approached by an armed goon (with or without a badge), whom you have reason to suspect will initiate force against you, fighting him is a reasonable reaction. I have zero sympathy for cops getting beat up while they are out committing enforcement. Sure, they have every right to defend themselves- but I believe that is true of any thug. Even if one is attacking me and I try to shoot him. Being a thug can't magically make self defense wrong- I just always hope the thug (he who started the confrontation) loses his fight.
Fourthly- the killer cop didn't know about the robbery Brown is posthumously being suspected of committing, so approaching Brown was not justified by that possibility. If Brown robbed a store, the people present had the right to kill him in the act- the cop doesn't figure into that at all.
Fifthly- If you are going to riot and loot, using police brutality as an excuse, TARGET THE COPS AND THE POLITICIANS WHO HOLD THEIR LEASHES! Striking out at people who didn't do it is stupid and makes you into nothing but common thugs who also deserve to be killed. There are all sorts of courthouses, police stations, police cars, DMV offices, and other government facilities which would be perfectly justifiable targets for destruction and looting. So, go after them, not the innocent (who admittedly have more appealing stuff to take, I suppose).
Sixthly (spell check is losing patience with me here)- This goes along with Fifthly, above: Targeting people who aren't burning and looting stuff with your heavy-handed enforcement is stupid and makes you into nothing but common thugs who also deserve to be killed. That includes targeting reporters, photographers, people going about their daily lives, people driving through the area, and everyone not currently initiating force or violating private property.
Seventhly- Adding militarized enforcers to the situation NEVER makes things better. Want protests to get violent? Send in the clowns... uh, cops. That will guarantee violence. And the more militarized the cops, the more violent the situation will become. Pretending otherwise is stupidity of a monumental nature.
Eighthly- Any time a cop fires his gun, is involved in a car wreck, or anything else on the job- and probably off-duty, too- his name should not be kept secret. It makes him look guilty, and reasonable people will assume his bosses know he's guilty and are trying to cover it up. If you are a tax parasite you have no right to expect privacy from your employers' (the "taxpayers") scrutiny. If you don't like that you can quit and get an honest job.
And that's all I can think of at the moment.
.
Well, I guess I'll speak now.
First off, I don't need cops, so I don't want them doing anything on "my behalf". Period. Disband them all and send them home, and give their equipment and guns to the people who have been forced to pay for them.
Secondly- I don't want cops approaching and confronting people for any reason; not for walking down the middle of the traffic lanes or anything else. If someone, insanely, calls the cops for a specific reason, then I suppose it's different as long as the cop goes straight to the person who called and leaves everyone else alone on his way. But, otherwise, cops should stay in the donut shop and out of the community at large.
Thirdly- if anyone is approached by an armed goon (with or without a badge), whom you have reason to suspect will initiate force against you, fighting him is a reasonable reaction. I have zero sympathy for cops getting beat up while they are out committing enforcement. Sure, they have every right to defend themselves- but I believe that is true of any thug. Even if one is attacking me and I try to shoot him. Being a thug can't magically make self defense wrong- I just always hope the thug (he who started the confrontation) loses his fight.
Fourthly- the killer cop didn't know about the robbery Brown is posthumously being suspected of committing, so approaching Brown was not justified by that possibility. If Brown robbed a store, the people present had the right to kill him in the act- the cop doesn't figure into that at all.
Fifthly- If you are going to riot and loot, using police brutality as an excuse, TARGET THE COPS AND THE POLITICIANS WHO HOLD THEIR LEASHES! Striking out at people who didn't do it is stupid and makes you into nothing but common thugs who also deserve to be killed. There are all sorts of courthouses, police stations, police cars, DMV offices, and other government facilities which would be perfectly justifiable targets for destruction and looting. So, go after them, not the innocent (who admittedly have more appealing stuff to take, I suppose).
Sixthly (spell check is losing patience with me here)- This goes along with Fifthly, above: Targeting people who aren't burning and looting stuff with your heavy-handed enforcement is stupid and makes you into nothing but common thugs who also deserve to be killed. That includes targeting reporters, photographers, people going about their daily lives, people driving through the area, and everyone not currently initiating force or violating private property.
Seventhly- Adding militarized enforcers to the situation NEVER makes things better. Want protests to get violent? Send in the clowns... uh, cops. That will guarantee violence. And the more militarized the cops, the more violent the situation will become. Pretending otherwise is stupidity of a monumental nature.
Eighthly- Any time a cop fires his gun, is involved in a car wreck, or anything else on the job- and probably off-duty, too- his name should not be kept secret. It makes him look guilty, and reasonable people will assume his bosses know he's guilty and are trying to cover it up. If you are a tax parasite you have no right to expect privacy from your employers' (the "taxpayers") scrutiny. If you don't like that you can quit and get an honest job.
And that's all I can think of at the moment.
.
Welfare of the worst kind
Almost all "laws" amount to nothing more than a welfare program for cops.
Without enforcers to support, those "laws" would be recognized* as pointless. Or worse.
They don't help or protect or serve anyone, except the political parasites and their enforcers. I wouldn't suffer one bit if those "laws" evaporated.
But, because there are enforcers, and those enforcers want to "do something" (eat, keep a roof over their heads, clothe their crotch-fruit), the welfare program of inventing "laws" keeps feeding them- with money stolen from actual productive people.
It's sad and disturbing that too many people support those destructive rules and the parasites who enforce them.
*Recognized as such by others who aren't you and me, I mean. We see them as they really are already... right?
.
Without enforcers to support, those "laws" would be recognized* as pointless. Or worse.
They don't help or protect or serve anyone, except the political parasites and their enforcers. I wouldn't suffer one bit if those "laws" evaporated.
But, because there are enforcers, and those enforcers want to "do something" (eat, keep a roof over their heads, clothe their crotch-fruit), the welfare program of inventing "laws" keeps feeding them- with money stolen from actual productive people.
It's sad and disturbing that too many people support those destructive rules and the parasites who enforce them.
-
*Recognized as such by others who aren't you and me, I mean. We see them as they really are already... right?
.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Future enforcer in training
Recently, at a family reunion, I watched some kids playing. They had some little wheeled scooters they were riding around on; "driving" them in circles. But all was not so peaceable.
This one kid was practically sitting on his smaller playmate and preventing him from driving anywhere- just holding him in place and holding his arms down at his sides; just generally being a hands-on thug. The smaller kid complained some- I was watching to make sure nothing got too out of control (and wishing the smaller kid would haul off and bloody the other kid's nose or lip). Someone asked the bigger kid why he was doing that. The kid's answer: they were playing "cops and robbers". I know which side he was emulating.
I don't think the smaller kid was consenting to this "game", but the big bully didn't really care.
Yep, unless he changes his ways he'll make a fine police officer one day. He's already got the routine down.
.
This one kid was practically sitting on his smaller playmate and preventing him from driving anywhere- just holding him in place and holding his arms down at his sides; just generally being a hands-on thug. The smaller kid complained some- I was watching to make sure nothing got too out of control (and wishing the smaller kid would haul off and bloody the other kid's nose or lip). Someone asked the bigger kid why he was doing that. The kid's answer: they were playing "cops and robbers". I know which side he was emulating.
I don't think the smaller kid was consenting to this "game", but the big bully didn't really care.
Yep, unless he changes his ways he'll make a fine police officer one day. He's already got the routine down.
.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Tolerating government not a virtue
Tolerating government not a virtue
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 18, 2014)
Tolerance. It is sold to us as some sort of virtue when it's nothing of the sort. It's simply putting up with something, or someone, you hate.
I don't want or need any government, but how much could I tolerate?
I could tolerate a government which coordinates the construction and maintenance of roads, but not one which hires enforcers to patrol those roads, collecting money for government in the process.
I could tolerate a government which provides courts to intervene for victims facing their violators, but not one which makes up laws which run counter to Natural Law, and pretends government can be the victim.
I could tolerate a government which trains volunteers to defend from invaders; not one which sends invaders to other places around the world.
I could tolerate a government which offers services and products in competition with the free market; not one which enforces it's own monopolies in defense, postal services, justice, or "protection".
I could tolerate a government which draws lines on a map it calls "borders", designed to prevent other liberty-destroying governments from expanding their territory farther; not one which enforces those borders against travelers and migrants going either direction.
I could tolerate a government which doesn't penalize anyone for choosing to opt out of any of it's programs or services, at any time, for any reason; not one which forces people to pay for and use things they don't want and can't afford.
I could tolerate a government which coordinates, not one which enforces.
I could tolerate a government which billed me for services I voluntarily agreed to pay for, not one which taxes anyone for things they don't consent to- including any of the things on this list I could otherwise tolerate.
I could tolerate that sort of government, but I still wouldn't support it. Mainly because I don't need it, and I know you don't either.
Sure, once government has socialized some product or service it becomes difficult for most people to admit this isn't the only way it can be done. People stop being able to imagine better ways. Often, they deny any other way is even a possibility. This is flawed thinking; not reality.
One thing I could never tolerate is a government which metastasizes into a State. A State invariably becomes, by definition, all the things above which I couldn't tolerate. Tolerance can only be stretched so thin before it breaks.
All States, without exception, will eventually collapse because they all grow beyond those things which can be tolerated or sustained;, becoming top-heavy, fragile constructs. Stop being dependent now, to avoid the pain if the inevitable collapse happens in your lifetime.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 18, 2014)
Tolerance. It is sold to us as some sort of virtue when it's nothing of the sort. It's simply putting up with something, or someone, you hate.
I don't want or need any government, but how much could I tolerate?
I could tolerate a government which coordinates the construction and maintenance of roads, but not one which hires enforcers to patrol those roads, collecting money for government in the process.
I could tolerate a government which provides courts to intervene for victims facing their violators, but not one which makes up laws which run counter to Natural Law, and pretends government can be the victim.
I could tolerate a government which trains volunteers to defend from invaders; not one which sends invaders to other places around the world.
I could tolerate a government which offers services and products in competition with the free market; not one which enforces it's own monopolies in defense, postal services, justice, or "protection".
I could tolerate a government which draws lines on a map it calls "borders", designed to prevent other liberty-destroying governments from expanding their territory farther; not one which enforces those borders against travelers and migrants going either direction.
I could tolerate a government which doesn't penalize anyone for choosing to opt out of any of it's programs or services, at any time, for any reason; not one which forces people to pay for and use things they don't want and can't afford.
I could tolerate a government which coordinates, not one which enforces.
I could tolerate a government which billed me for services I voluntarily agreed to pay for, not one which taxes anyone for things they don't consent to- including any of the things on this list I could otherwise tolerate.
I could tolerate that sort of government, but I still wouldn't support it. Mainly because I don't need it, and I know you don't either.
Sure, once government has socialized some product or service it becomes difficult for most people to admit this isn't the only way it can be done. People stop being able to imagine better ways. Often, they deny any other way is even a possibility. This is flawed thinking; not reality.
One thing I could never tolerate is a government which metastasizes into a State. A State invariably becomes, by definition, all the things above which I couldn't tolerate. Tolerance can only be stretched so thin before it breaks.
All States, without exception, will eventually collapse because they all grow beyond those things which can be tolerated or sustained;, becoming top-heavy, fragile constructs. Stop being dependent now, to avoid the pain if the inevitable collapse happens in your lifetime.
.
Requesting donations- shameful or just annoying?
If you are one who doesn't enjoy reading posts about my personal finances, this post isn't for you. See ya tomorrow, I hope.
For anyone else...
Most of my life I have had "real jobs", even if they weren't high-paying jobs. There were good things and bad things about every single one of them- just as there are with this job. Probably the worst thing about this job- besides the pay- is the isolation. But, when I can, I get out and interact with people. (Money helps that, too.) The best thing? I love the emails of support I get, and the occasional in-person appreciation!
But, even my "real jobs" have not always gone smoothly, as far as bringing in the money.
Once I was working for a place which got into some financial trouble, due to some dishonesty from a relative of theirs. I didn't get a paycheck for at least 6 weeks, but I wasn't in dire need at the time, so I kept working without complaint, listening to the assurances that "soon" all my back hours would be paid. Finally I said I had to start getting some money, or I would need to find a different job, therefore I would only keep working if I got paid in cash at the end of the day. I hated mentioning it. So, that's what happened- and finally I started getting paid for the back wages, too. (I still got stiffed for one whole week of work- my claim was disputed, so perhaps I was wrong... but I was keeping up with what I was owed, and what I was being paid, pretty carefully). If I hadn't asked for the money I was owed, I doubt I would have ever gotten it.
Well, the recent commenter who is "embarrassed for [me]" and my tin cup rattling obviously feels I either don't deserve to be paid for the writing I do (except, perhaps, for the newspaper column, which is only 1/7 of my writing), or that I am paid enough already. Or maybe that only certain work, under certain traditional conditions, deserves to be paid. And that is his perfectly valid opinion, so I can't dispute it. That doesn't guarantee I wouldn't end up asking for money, either, but I guess I wouldn't be bothering you (or him) about it.
I have some very generous subscribers and donors, and I can't begin to express how grateful I am for their support, but unless I mention a need I rarely get any "out of the blue" donations. And I really do need those extras to make ends get sorta close to meeting- or at least being in sight of one another.
So, why should I be ashamed to mention the need?
I have donated money to certain blogs/projects/people, myself- not as much as I would like to, and not usually when I am feeling the need to do some begging of my own (although I helped one person out in an emergency, which made me have to ask for donations afterward- but I would have helped her regardless of what happened to me in that case).
I have never been offended by others asking, even if I feel bad that I can't help. That's my problem, not theirs. The "job" landscape is changing, and it is still a bit chaotic and unsettled. And it may get worse before things settle into the new "normal".
I love William N. Grigg's "Pro Libertate" blog, and even though he ends every single post with a request for donations, and even though I don't believe I have ever donated a cent to him, his requests don't bother me at all. He is awesome and works for- and richly deserves- every penny he gets.
Recently Chris Muir's "Day by Day" comic strip ran a multi-week fund raiser where he requested a specific amount and kept beating the drum until he got it. And, once again, I didn't donate anything, but his request didn't strike me as crass or that he was asking for "money for nothing". He obviously works hard to produce his strip and I believe he should be rewarded for the work he does.
And, I could mention other examples, too.
Do I think I am as good or important as either of those examples? Heavens no! If you'd rather donate to them- or to no one- it's none of my business. But, if they can ask, why can't I? What makes me different? That I am not famous?
It does bother me to ask- sometimes a lot. Does it bother others to ask? I have no idea. But, often, asking is what makes a difference. In the past I would say I have usually gotten donations about half the times I make a request. And for that I thank you all.
But then, maybe I am not "good enough" to ask for donations. That would be a perfectly valid reason to object to my requests- if I seem to be saying I "deserve" something I don't. Only you can judge that.
I thought long and hard after feeling I had been scolded for asking for donations- on a post where I wasn't asking for donations, but running some product ideas past my readers. After that happened I considered making a commitment to myself to never ask again.
But, you know what? I have nothing to be ashamed of. I have never resented someone telling me they won't or can't donate to me. I have never tried to make anyone feel bad for not donating when they try to explain why they don't. I put a lot of work into this blog, and when I need money I ask, but if you don't want to donate, for any reason, don't. It doesn't bother me. You don't "owe" me anything. No explanations necessary.
If I ever get to the point where I am regularly getting at least $600 per month, total, I don't think you'd ever see another request for donations- unless some unusual crisis crops up. Until then, I hope you don't mind if I post the occasional reminder. If you do mind, I'm really sorry. I don't want to drive anyone away, and I hope the rest of my content is worth the occasional bleg you can just skip over without giving it a second thought. If it's not, it isn't your fault.
And, yeah, I could really use some donations right now.
.
For anyone else...
Most of my life I have had "real jobs", even if they weren't high-paying jobs. There were good things and bad things about every single one of them- just as there are with this job. Probably the worst thing about this job- besides the pay- is the isolation. But, when I can, I get out and interact with people. (Money helps that, too.) The best thing? I love the emails of support I get, and the occasional in-person appreciation!
But, even my "real jobs" have not always gone smoothly, as far as bringing in the money.
Once I was working for a place which got into some financial trouble, due to some dishonesty from a relative of theirs. I didn't get a paycheck for at least 6 weeks, but I wasn't in dire need at the time, so I kept working without complaint, listening to the assurances that "soon" all my back hours would be paid. Finally I said I had to start getting some money, or I would need to find a different job, therefore I would only keep working if I got paid in cash at the end of the day. I hated mentioning it. So, that's what happened- and finally I started getting paid for the back wages, too. (I still got stiffed for one whole week of work- my claim was disputed, so perhaps I was wrong... but I was keeping up with what I was owed, and what I was being paid, pretty carefully). If I hadn't asked for the money I was owed, I doubt I would have ever gotten it.
Well, the recent commenter who is "embarrassed for [me]" and my tin cup rattling obviously feels I either don't deserve to be paid for the writing I do (except, perhaps, for the newspaper column, which is only 1/7 of my writing), or that I am paid enough already. Or maybe that only certain work, under certain traditional conditions, deserves to be paid. And that is his perfectly valid opinion, so I can't dispute it. That doesn't guarantee I wouldn't end up asking for money, either, but I guess I wouldn't be bothering you (or him) about it.
I have some very generous subscribers and donors, and I can't begin to express how grateful I am for their support, but unless I mention a need I rarely get any "out of the blue" donations. And I really do need those extras to make ends get sorta close to meeting- or at least being in sight of one another.
So, why should I be ashamed to mention the need?
I have donated money to certain blogs/projects/people, myself- not as much as I would like to, and not usually when I am feeling the need to do some begging of my own (although I helped one person out in an emergency, which made me have to ask for donations afterward- but I would have helped her regardless of what happened to me in that case).
I have never been offended by others asking, even if I feel bad that I can't help. That's my problem, not theirs. The "job" landscape is changing, and it is still a bit chaotic and unsettled. And it may get worse before things settle into the new "normal".
I love William N. Grigg's "Pro Libertate" blog, and even though he ends every single post with a request for donations, and even though I don't believe I have ever donated a cent to him, his requests don't bother me at all. He is awesome and works for- and richly deserves- every penny he gets.
Recently Chris Muir's "Day by Day" comic strip ran a multi-week fund raiser where he requested a specific amount and kept beating the drum until he got it. And, once again, I didn't donate anything, but his request didn't strike me as crass or that he was asking for "money for nothing". He obviously works hard to produce his strip and I believe he should be rewarded for the work he does.
And, I could mention other examples, too.
Do I think I am as good or important as either of those examples? Heavens no! If you'd rather donate to them- or to no one- it's none of my business. But, if they can ask, why can't I? What makes me different? That I am not famous?
It does bother me to ask- sometimes a lot. Does it bother others to ask? I have no idea. But, often, asking is what makes a difference. In the past I would say I have usually gotten donations about half the times I make a request. And for that I thank you all.
But then, maybe I am not "good enough" to ask for donations. That would be a perfectly valid reason to object to my requests- if I seem to be saying I "deserve" something I don't. Only you can judge that.
I thought long and hard after feeling I had been scolded for asking for donations- on a post where I wasn't asking for donations, but running some product ideas past my readers. After that happened I considered making a commitment to myself to never ask again.
But, you know what? I have nothing to be ashamed of. I have never resented someone telling me they won't or can't donate to me. I have never tried to make anyone feel bad for not donating when they try to explain why they don't. I put a lot of work into this blog, and when I need money I ask, but if you don't want to donate, for any reason, don't. It doesn't bother me. You don't "owe" me anything. No explanations necessary.
If I ever get to the point where I am regularly getting at least $600 per month, total, I don't think you'd ever see another request for donations- unless some unusual crisis crops up. Until then, I hope you don't mind if I post the occasional reminder. If you do mind, I'm really sorry. I don't want to drive anyone away, and I hope the rest of my content is worth the occasional bleg you can just skip over without giving it a second thought. If it's not, it isn't your fault.
And, yeah, I could really use some donations right now.
.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Gangs
A "new" justification for the brutal and ridiculous gang of government is that without them, freelance inner-city (or foreign) gangs will eventually leave the cities to rampage the countryside, killing and raping us all. Especially when the "free stuff" dries up.
Never have figured out why I'm supposed to fear freelance gangs, whom I can generally "legally" shoot and kill, more than the government gangbangers who are "legally" off-limits, no matter what they do.
But, it brings up a question in my mind. Why are there gangs?
I think it's because humans have a strong need to belong. To a tribe or a gang. Or a "government"- but I repeat myself.
Now, I'm no expert or anything, but I sometimes feel that same need myself, and I can extrapolate that to others. Perhaps I am wrong.
Belonging to a group gives you a sense of place, but it also gives you a bunch of people to watch your back. For people without principle- aggressive thugs of any sort- belonging to the group is all that matters, and they'll happily commit any atrocity to show their loyalty to the group. They watch each other's backs while doing evil, not only when others would do evil to them.
But the "criminal gangs" owe their very existence to The State. The State causes the problem it is supposedly the only solution to.
By inventing counterfeit "laws", The State empowers and finances gangs on both sides of "the law". It pits them against each other, and bystanders like you or me can get hurt in the crossfire. It also invents rules designed to protect those aggressive gang members from the rightful consequences of their actions. Because the gangs use weapons, The State's goons make up rules saying you and I are forbidden to own and to carry weapons- making the bad guys safer. If they attack or steal, self defensive violence should end their parasitical life- no matter what gang they call their own. Or whether they belong to a gang or not.
I do not benefit by having a gang rob me and violate my rights in order to fight against another gang which might like to rob me and violate my rights in their place. I benefit by committing myself to defend myself, my friends, and my family from any attack, no matter who is committing it. And I benefit by those who reciprocate on my behalf- voluntarily, without claiming a "right" to rob and molest me for my own good.
I'm sorry, but your fear of freelance gangs doesn't give you any right to impose your gang on my life, liberty, or property.
Added:
The way I see it, the "argument" boils down to this: "Because there are gangs out there- with limited territories and resources- I need to support the creation of other gangs- with almost limitless territories and resources- even though I am a member of neither gang."
Interestingly, after I wrote the above, I participated in a discussion with someone who says a centralized monopoly of force- government- is the only thing freelance gangs respect, so he is in favor of it. He based this on his experiences in a pretty nasty place- which he ended up leaving (which I pointed out is a perfectly valid choice).
Here is my response:
Once you have a centralized, monopolized force you have the very sort of gang you fled from. It's just that- for whatever reason- you prefer the gang calling itself "government" to the other gangs. That's your choice. But it's still nothing but a gang.
There can never really be a monopoly of power. Governments/gangs wish it were possible- as long as they end up on the "winning" side. There will always be competition for that power. Government vs gang Z vs gang X vs "rich warlord" vs determined and armed individual vs who-knows-what. If you base your society of gangs, you'll always have gangs fighting gangs, seeking to increase their cut. Right now, the gang called "government" just has a temporarily larger slice, but it's still nothing but gang warfare over turf and who they are "allowed" to fleece and rape.
Any gang- government or freelance- will usually leave you mostly alone until they want something of yours, or until you refuse to comply with some other demand. Then they'll take it or "enforce" their demand if you can't stop them. Government enforces all of their theft and aggression with death. Don't believe me? Refuse to cough up for some "fine" or "tax". You'll get a threatening message. Ignore it and eventually men with guns will arrive to force you to pay up or be caged. Resist and they will kill you. Each step of the way thugs calling themselves "government" will escalate the violence until you either comply or die. That is gangland behavior; not civilized behavior.
Government isn't security- except for the members of its own gang. Same as any other gang. Everything you point out about the freelance bad guys applies identically to "government".
You are making a distinction where none exists.
There will never be a Utopia free from the presence of all bad guys. I just don't do mental gymnastics trying to justify one violent, thieving gang over another. Maybe because you believe you know what to expect from your chosen gang, and the other gangs seem unpredictable and arbitrary, you have chosen the one you support. I can see why some might see that as preferable. So, you support the gang you prefer, and I'll do the same (which, since I prefer no gangs at all...).
Every anti-gun "law" and anti-self defense "law" makes it that much safer to be a thug. Until the point is reached where some people actually believe that without "government" the (freelance) gangs would run rampant- as if that is substantively different than the current situation. It's quite a handy scam they've got going.
.
Never have figured out why I'm supposed to fear freelance gangs, whom I can generally "legally" shoot and kill, more than the government gangbangers who are "legally" off-limits, no matter what they do.
But, it brings up a question in my mind. Why are there gangs?
I think it's because humans have a strong need to belong. To a tribe or a gang. Or a "government"- but I repeat myself.
Now, I'm no expert or anything, but I sometimes feel that same need myself, and I can extrapolate that to others. Perhaps I am wrong.
Belonging to a group gives you a sense of place, but it also gives you a bunch of people to watch your back. For people without principle- aggressive thugs of any sort- belonging to the group is all that matters, and they'll happily commit any atrocity to show their loyalty to the group. They watch each other's backs while doing evil, not only when others would do evil to them.
But the "criminal gangs" owe their very existence to The State. The State causes the problem it is supposedly the only solution to.
By inventing counterfeit "laws", The State empowers and finances gangs on both sides of "the law". It pits them against each other, and bystanders like you or me can get hurt in the crossfire. It also invents rules designed to protect those aggressive gang members from the rightful consequences of their actions. Because the gangs use weapons, The State's goons make up rules saying you and I are forbidden to own and to carry weapons- making the bad guys safer. If they attack or steal, self defensive violence should end their parasitical life- no matter what gang they call their own. Or whether they belong to a gang or not.
I do not benefit by having a gang rob me and violate my rights in order to fight against another gang which might like to rob me and violate my rights in their place. I benefit by committing myself to defend myself, my friends, and my family from any attack, no matter who is committing it. And I benefit by those who reciprocate on my behalf- voluntarily, without claiming a "right" to rob and molest me for my own good.
I'm sorry, but your fear of freelance gangs doesn't give you any right to impose your gang on my life, liberty, or property.
Added:
The way I see it, the "argument" boils down to this: "Because there are gangs out there- with limited territories and resources- I need to support the creation of other gangs- with almost limitless territories and resources- even though I am a member of neither gang."
Part 2
Interestingly, after I wrote the above, I participated in a discussion with someone who says a centralized monopoly of force- government- is the only thing freelance gangs respect, so he is in favor of it. He based this on his experiences in a pretty nasty place- which he ended up leaving (which I pointed out is a perfectly valid choice).
Here is my response:
Once you have a centralized, monopolized force you have the very sort of gang you fled from. It's just that- for whatever reason- you prefer the gang calling itself "government" to the other gangs. That's your choice. But it's still nothing but a gang.
There can never really be a monopoly of power. Governments/gangs wish it were possible- as long as they end up on the "winning" side. There will always be competition for that power. Government vs gang Z vs gang X vs "rich warlord" vs determined and armed individual vs who-knows-what. If you base your society of gangs, you'll always have gangs fighting gangs, seeking to increase their cut. Right now, the gang called "government" just has a temporarily larger slice, but it's still nothing but gang warfare over turf and who they are "allowed" to fleece and rape.
Any gang- government or freelance- will usually leave you mostly alone until they want something of yours, or until you refuse to comply with some other demand. Then they'll take it or "enforce" their demand if you can't stop them. Government enforces all of their theft and aggression with death. Don't believe me? Refuse to cough up for some "fine" or "tax". You'll get a threatening message. Ignore it and eventually men with guns will arrive to force you to pay up or be caged. Resist and they will kill you. Each step of the way thugs calling themselves "government" will escalate the violence until you either comply or die. That is gangland behavior; not civilized behavior.
Government isn't security- except for the members of its own gang. Same as any other gang. Everything you point out about the freelance bad guys applies identically to "government".
You are making a distinction where none exists.
There will never be a Utopia free from the presence of all bad guys. I just don't do mental gymnastics trying to justify one violent, thieving gang over another. Maybe because you believe you know what to expect from your chosen gang, and the other gangs seem unpredictable and arbitrary, you have chosen the one you support. I can see why some might see that as preferable. So, you support the gang you prefer, and I'll do the same (which, since I prefer no gangs at all...).
Every anti-gun "law" and anti-self defense "law" makes it that much safer to be a thug. Until the point is reached where some people actually believe that without "government" the (freelance) gangs would run rampant- as if that is substantively different than the current situation. It's quite a handy scam they've got going.
.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Liberty matters!
Sometimes, after a discussion with a statist, I feel very irritated at myself for having allowed my emotions to show.
Why do I get worked up? Why?
Because it matters.
Things are the way they are because most people keep following the same foolish path toward more state. And no one wants to hurt their little feelings, even when they are headed over the cliff.
Cowardice!
If someone doesn't stop being so meekly polite in the face of insanity others may never realize they are behaving insanely.
That doesn't mean every discussion is the time or place to get emotional, but you have to understand that a lot of people aren't convinced by rational arguments and logic. Nope. For them it takes plucking their heartstrings; they are ruled by emotionalism and are only swayed by an emotional appeal. I don't like that, either, but it is what it is.
So, when you need to be emotional, allow yourself to show it. Because liberty freakin' MATTERS!
.
Why do I get worked up? Why?
Because it matters.
Things are the way they are because most people keep following the same foolish path toward more state. And no one wants to hurt their little feelings, even when they are headed over the cliff.
Cowardice!
If someone doesn't stop being so meekly polite in the face of insanity others may never realize they are behaving insanely.
That doesn't mean every discussion is the time or place to get emotional, but you have to understand that a lot of people aren't convinced by rational arguments and logic. Nope. For them it takes plucking their heartstrings; they are ruled by emotionalism and are only swayed by an emotional appeal. I don't like that, either, but it is what it is.
So, when you need to be emotional, allow yourself to show it. Because liberty freakin' MATTERS!
.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
The failure that is "pragmatism"
How many times have you been scolded and told to be "pragmatic"?
If you advocate for liberty and gun rights, I'll bet you've heard that a lot. After all, you can't expect "them" to actually respect your rights. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." And, you shouldn't be so stubborn and inflexible.
Well...
There is a time and place for pragmatism. Choosing to initiate force or theft- or excusing those who do- because you can't get the bad guys to admit they are evil isn't it.
Don't tell me to offer up one of my kids "pragmatically" as a human sacrifice so the others may have a better chance to live. Wrong is wrong. I may never live in a perfect world- in fact I'm quite certain I won't- but you don't hit the target by refusing to pick up your weapon for fear of hurting someone's feelings or spooking the herd. Aim small; miss small. I know what I want.
Yes, your compromise with evil may be better than "what is", and I won't stop you from advocating for it. I'll even enjoy any fruits of liberty you manage to bring to harvest. But I'll never be distracted from the prize. I also hope once you get "enough liberty" you'll decide to join my drive for the rest of the pie.
.
If you advocate for liberty and gun rights, I'll bet you've heard that a lot. After all, you can't expect "them" to actually respect your rights. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." And, you shouldn't be so stubborn and inflexible.
Well...
There is a time and place for pragmatism. Choosing to initiate force or theft- or excusing those who do- because you can't get the bad guys to admit they are evil isn't it.
Don't tell me to offer up one of my kids "pragmatically" as a human sacrifice so the others may have a better chance to live. Wrong is wrong. I may never live in a perfect world- in fact I'm quite certain I won't- but you don't hit the target by refusing to pick up your weapon for fear of hurting someone's feelings or spooking the herd. Aim small; miss small. I know what I want.
Yes, your compromise with evil may be better than "what is", and I won't stop you from advocating for it. I'll even enjoy any fruits of liberty you manage to bring to harvest. But I'll never be distracted from the prize. I also hope once you get "enough liberty" you'll decide to join my drive for the rest of the pie.
.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
I'm grateful for cops
No, seriously.
There was a time when bandits didn't advertise their evil intent. They blended in and you had no clue who they were until it was too late and they attacked.
The bad guys of the Western genre wear black hats and bandannas over their faces so you can know to keep an eye on them- while you watch the show. In real life I doubt they advertised so conspicuously.
But today the majority of the individuals you are likely to be violated by advertise their evil intent with badges and uniforms. Imagine that! You can tell at a glance who's the most likely, in a group of people, to be a real and credible danger to your life, liberty, property, and happiness.
We should all thank them for being so up-front about their intentions and loyalties.
.
There was a time when bandits didn't advertise their evil intent. They blended in and you had no clue who they were until it was too late and they attacked.
The bad guys of the Western genre wear black hats and bandannas over their faces so you can know to keep an eye on them- while you watch the show. In real life I doubt they advertised so conspicuously.
But today the majority of the individuals you are likely to be violated by advertise their evil intent with badges and uniforms. Imagine that! You can tell at a glance who's the most likely, in a group of people, to be a real and credible danger to your life, liberty, property, and happiness.
We should all thank them for being so up-front about their intentions and loyalties.
.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Shaneen Allen is denied justice again
There's more news about State victim, Shaneen Allen.
Now the corrupt "judge" denies her request to drop the bogus charges.
Not that I'm surprised, since this is what you get when you allow the conflict of interest with State employees being involved in cases where The State is one of the interested parties (the imaginary one, at that!).
Wish I could save you from the cannibal clowns, Shaneen.
.
Now the corrupt "judge" denies her request to drop the bogus charges.
Not that I'm surprised, since this is what you get when you allow the conflict of interest with State employees being involved in cases where The State is one of the interested parties (the imaginary one, at that!).
Wish I could save you from the cannibal clowns, Shaneen.
.
Another question- Time's Up items
Now that I have Time's Up patches offered for sale, are there any other items you might be interested in? Other than flags.
Some of the items I have considered include bumper stickers, key rings, lighters, pens, calendars, yard signs, "do rags", rubber stamps, and Christmas ornaments.
I'm open to suggestions if you think of anything else people might like.
.
Some of the items I have considered include bumper stickers, key rings, lighters, pens, calendars, yard signs, "do rags", rubber stamps, and Christmas ornaments.
I'm open to suggestions if you think of anything else people might like.
.
Self evaluation time
I write for you, my readers. This makes you my employer. And you get a very good deal because you can choose whether to pay me or not- and whether to even notice me or not.
And I'll probably continue to write, either way.
I get a good deal because no one person can really fire me or coerce me in what I write. Well, the newspaper gig could, but I get more money from donations and subscriptions, anyway.
I always wonder: Am I doing the right thing by writing about liberty? Would I be more effective doing something else- or nothing at all; just living it, instead?
As long as I keep getting your support and comments, I'll keep thinking I am doing some good. Feel free to chime in to tell me otherwise.
.
And I'll probably continue to write, either way.
I get a good deal because no one person can really fire me or coerce me in what I write. Well, the newspaper gig could, but I get more money from donations and subscriptions, anyway.
I always wonder: Am I doing the right thing by writing about liberty? Would I be more effective doing something else- or nothing at all; just living it, instead?
As long as I keep getting your support and comments, I'll keep thinking I am doing some good. Feel free to chime in to tell me otherwise.
.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Governments pay lip-service to reasoning
Governments pay lip-service to reasoning
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 11, 2014)
There are two- and only two- ways to interact with other people: you can use reason or you can resort to force. Reason is the civilized choice.
The really great thing about most people is they almost never- on their own- resort to force. Rarely does anyone try to force their will on others in daily life. Rarely do they steal rather than making a trade. People say "excuse me" and hold doors open for one another without anyone ordering them to. People are mostly decent, and it is no trick to get them to see people who shun reason and prefer force as the damaged ones.
In fact, with one absurd exception, almost everyone understands choosing force over reason to be wrong. Sure, there are a few freelance bad guys out there, and there always will be, but the number is much smaller than you have been tricked into believing. The rest of us outnumber them so overwhelmingly that if we were to once again take responsibility for our own safety and self defense they'd be wiped out very quickly unless they changed their ways.
For the rest of us, when we want someone else to agree to something we try to convince them how great our idea is, or how it would be in their interest to join our cause. We may even offer incentives. If we can't convince them, the civilized thing is to let them walk away.
When was the last time someone physically twisted your arm to get you to compromise on pizza toppings? How long has it been since you had a gun stuck in your face for saying you'd rather opt out of a family gathering?
When someone chooses to use force to make you do things their way, you are completely justified in responding with force in self defense. Those who choose force don't want you to know this- they want protection or immunity from the consequences of their choices.
Why do people imagine the rule of civilized behavior magically changes once someone invokes government?
This dichotomy of reason or force is also why all governments, no matter what they say, are uncomfortable with people like you or me owning and carrying adequate weapons to resist those who default to force. It's why they always impose exceptions or "reasonable" limits in spite of "shall not be infringed". Governments all rely on force, and will only give reason lip-service for show.
Force leads to tyranny; the use of reason leads to liberty. People, left to their own, choose reason and liberty most of the time. Left to ourselves we can handle those who don't.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 11, 2014)
There are two- and only two- ways to interact with other people: you can use reason or you can resort to force. Reason is the civilized choice.
The really great thing about most people is they almost never- on their own- resort to force. Rarely does anyone try to force their will on others in daily life. Rarely do they steal rather than making a trade. People say "excuse me" and hold doors open for one another without anyone ordering them to. People are mostly decent, and it is no trick to get them to see people who shun reason and prefer force as the damaged ones.
In fact, with one absurd exception, almost everyone understands choosing force over reason to be wrong. Sure, there are a few freelance bad guys out there, and there always will be, but the number is much smaller than you have been tricked into believing. The rest of us outnumber them so overwhelmingly that if we were to once again take responsibility for our own safety and self defense they'd be wiped out very quickly unless they changed their ways.
For the rest of us, when we want someone else to agree to something we try to convince them how great our idea is, or how it would be in their interest to join our cause. We may even offer incentives. If we can't convince them, the civilized thing is to let them walk away.
When was the last time someone physically twisted your arm to get you to compromise on pizza toppings? How long has it been since you had a gun stuck in your face for saying you'd rather opt out of a family gathering?
When someone chooses to use force to make you do things their way, you are completely justified in responding with force in self defense. Those who choose force don't want you to know this- they want protection or immunity from the consequences of their choices.
Why do people imagine the rule of civilized behavior magically changes once someone invokes government?
This dichotomy of reason or force is also why all governments, no matter what they say, are uncomfortable with people like you or me owning and carrying adequate weapons to resist those who default to force. It's why they always impose exceptions or "reasonable" limits in spite of "shall not be infringed". Governments all rely on force, and will only give reason lip-service for show.
Force leads to tyranny; the use of reason leads to liberty. People, left to their own, choose reason and liberty most of the time. Left to ourselves we can handle those who don't.
.
Freedom (or liberty?) and Property
A while back, after I had said that a person has no right to trespass even if surrounded by private property and prevented from getting vital resources by the owner/s, this link came up in comments: Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict.
I found it very interesting. It seems to dovetail very nicely with my "most unpopular idea". That doesn't make either one right, obviously. Still, it's something to think about, and it does make a lot of sense.
Of course, the author keeps talking about freedom, when I always think the critical issue is liberty.
.
I found it very interesting. It seems to dovetail very nicely with my "most unpopular idea". That doesn't make either one right, obviously. Still, it's something to think about, and it does make a lot of sense.
Of course, the author keeps talking about freedom, when I always think the critical issue is liberty.
.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Your tainted symbol
If "The US Flag", "Old Glory", were just a symbol of Americana- apple pies, mom, hotdogs, and happy times- I wouldn't be offended by it. If it were a symbol of home and hearth and community it would be fine.
But it's not. Not anymore- if ever.
If that were the case government buildings wouldn't be so dedicated to flying it.
It is now an omnipresent symbol of the US Empire and the militarism that goes with it. It has become primarily a military banner- symbolizing the ongoing wars of State vs Liberty.
I feel really bad for people who desperately want to love and defend that banner. Those who make all sorts of excuses for it, and say it is being used in a way contrary with its real meaning.
Tell that to the swastika.
.
But it's not. Not anymore- if ever.
If that were the case government buildings wouldn't be so dedicated to flying it.
It is now an omnipresent symbol of the US Empire and the militarism that goes with it. It has become primarily a military banner- symbolizing the ongoing wars of State vs Liberty.
I feel really bad for people who desperately want to love and defend that banner. Those who make all sorts of excuses for it, and say it is being used in a way contrary with its real meaning.
Tell that to the swastika.
.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Crack down on the crime of "governing"
It is a criminal act to commit "government".
But, it's worse than that.
"Government" is a copycat crime.
Not only that, it is an escalating copycat crime, where each thug gets new, innovative ideas of how to violate more people "better" from all the others committing the same evil act.
I say it's time to break the cycle.
.
But, it's worse than that.
"Government" is a copycat crime.
Not only that, it is an escalating copycat crime, where each thug gets new, innovative ideas of how to violate more people "better" from all the others committing the same evil act.
I say it's time to break the cycle.
.
Saturday, August 09, 2014
Hey buddy, wanna buy something?
Don't forget to buy Time's Up patches for yourself and your co-conspirators. And maybe other things from my "shop".
Don't make me beg!
Don't make me beg!
Prison is a racket
Prison is about punishment, not justice. If punishment is what you want, then don't call it "justice"; just be honest about what you are advocating. And don't force others to pay for your desire.
Justice is about returning the victim of theft or aggression to as near their pre-victimized condition as possible. Prison is about victimizing the victim again by "taxing" them to pay for keeping their violator in a cage.
Sure, as long as a violator is caged, he isn't victimizing anyone else- at least, no one else who isn't caged with him. (And remember that most people who are trapped in those state cages are there for violating counterfeit rules, not for actually doing wrong, so them being violated by an aggressive captive is doubly wrong.)
But a universally armed population would probably assure that most violators would soon be out of work- or dead- anyway, without theft or government employee aggression. And without caging people for "crimes" where only the mental glitch called "the State"- claims to have been victimized.
The above video is pretty good, but the guy is still not able to escape his statist delusions, saying silly things such as prison being necessary for society, and making other ridiculous statements like that. Discount the chaff and latch onto the meat of the matter.
.
Thursday, August 07, 2014
Liberty Lines, August 7, 2014
(Published in the Farwell TX / Texico NM "State Line Tribune". Wow... the version printed by the newspaper is filled with typos and errors that were not in my original. Because I came back and looked to make sure I hadn't made those mistakes. Sigh...)
What is authority? I think most people are very confused about that.
Let's say you have a vault which contains gold coins. The contents of that safe are yours, free and clear, and if you choose to do so, you can give me some of it. It is within your authority to do so.
If you have a butler whom you have authorized to hand out coins on your behalf, he also has the authority to give me some.
Thank you!
However, if the coins aren't yours to give away, but belong to someone else, or if you haven't given your butler permission to hand out your coins, giving them to me wouldn't be right. It is not within your authority, nor your butler's, to give them away. Doing so would be theft.
You also can't give the butler the authority to break into your neighbor's house and give away the neighbor's coins, because that authority is not yours to give. You would be wrong to pretend you could delegate that authority to anyone.
Similarly, you can't give any government employee authority you, personally, don't possess.
You can delegate the authority to catch a murderer, attacker, or a thief because you, personally, have that authority. No one had to give it to you; you were born with it. Those things are within your authority to deal with.
On the other hand, you don't have authority to forbid people from doing anything they want which doesn't directly cause physical harm- not just the potential for possible harm- against the innocent or violate private property rights, and therefore you can't delegate that nonexistent "authority" to anyone on your behalf. You would be attempting to give away something imaginary which therefore can't be yours to give. No matter how badly you want to, how you try to justify it, or how many of your neighbors agree with you. Acting as though you can do it anyway just makes you and your employee the bad guys.
Because you, as an individual, regardless of any delusions of grandeur, do not have the authority to tell others what to do with their own property, including their own lives, you can't delegate that authority. Not even by inventing governments or making up "laws". If you forge ahead, or send others to carry out your wishes on your behalf, you are a thief or an attacker.
.
.
What is authority? I think most people are very confused about that.
Let's say you have a vault which contains gold coins. The contents of that safe are yours, free and clear, and if you choose to do so, you can give me some of it. It is within your authority to do so.
If you have a butler whom you have authorized to hand out coins on your behalf, he also has the authority to give me some.
Thank you!
However, if the coins aren't yours to give away, but belong to someone else, or if you haven't given your butler permission to hand out your coins, giving them to me wouldn't be right. It is not within your authority, nor your butler's, to give them away. Doing so would be theft.
You also can't give the butler the authority to break into your neighbor's house and give away the neighbor's coins, because that authority is not yours to give. You would be wrong to pretend you could delegate that authority to anyone.
Similarly, you can't give any government employee authority you, personally, don't possess.
You can delegate the authority to catch a murderer, attacker, or a thief because you, personally, have that authority. No one had to give it to you; you were born with it. Those things are within your authority to deal with.
On the other hand, you don't have authority to forbid people from doing anything they want which doesn't directly cause physical harm- not just the potential for possible harm- against the innocent or violate private property rights, and therefore you can't delegate that nonexistent "authority" to anyone on your behalf. You would be attempting to give away something imaginary which therefore can't be yours to give. No matter how badly you want to, how you try to justify it, or how many of your neighbors agree with you. Acting as though you can do it anyway just makes you and your employee the bad guys.
Because you, as an individual, regardless of any delusions of grandeur, do not have the authority to tell others what to do with their own property, including their own lives, you can't delegate that authority. Not even by inventing governments or making up "laws". If you forge ahead, or send others to carry out your wishes on your behalf, you are a thief or an attacker.
.
.
Wednesday, August 06, 2014
Open letter to the individuals of the world
Individuals of the world:
The people who call themselves the US government consider YOU to be their enemy. That is why they spy on you. They spy on me, too. That means they consider me to be their their enemy.
Apparently they are so paranoid they see everyone not calling themselves "US government" to be their enemy. And probably not even all those in the same club ("the US government") are excluded. This will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
You may not be my friend. The enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend. But I don't believe the lies told against you by those who work for the US government. I have seen them lie far too often to ever again believe them about anything- at least not without plenty of independent confirmation. They are the boy who cried wolf, while he was the one savaging the sheep.
You and I probably have more in common than either of us have in common with the thugs and goons of the governments which want us to submit to their violations.
The thing is, I don't consider you my enemy. The US government in no way represents me. Not in the slightest. They don't spy on you on my behalf, but against my wishes. They don't put soldiers and military bases near you on my behalf. They don't violate your property for me. They don't torture for my benefit, but only for their own. They don't kill your brothers or fathers, sisters or mothers, cousins, sons, and daughters on my behalf.
Anything you do against those murderers in defense of your friends, family, or property is your right and doesn't upset me at all. As long as you aren't attacking or stealing from me or any innocent person, what you do is none of my business.
Don't forget to order some Time's Up patches!
.
The people who call themselves the US government consider YOU to be their enemy. That is why they spy on you. They spy on me, too. That means they consider me to be their their enemy.
Apparently they are so paranoid they see everyone not calling themselves "US government" to be their enemy. And probably not even all those in the same club ("the US government") are excluded. This will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
You may not be my friend. The enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend. But I don't believe the lies told against you by those who work for the US government. I have seen them lie far too often to ever again believe them about anything- at least not without plenty of independent confirmation. They are the boy who cried wolf, while he was the one savaging the sheep.
You and I probably have more in common than either of us have in common with the thugs and goons of the governments which want us to submit to their violations.
The thing is, I don't consider you my enemy. The US government in no way represents me. Not in the slightest. They don't spy on you on my behalf, but against my wishes. They don't put soldiers and military bases near you on my behalf. They don't violate your property for me. They don't torture for my benefit, but only for their own. They don't kill your brothers or fathers, sisters or mothers, cousins, sons, and daughters on my behalf.
Anything you do against those murderers in defense of your friends, family, or property is your right and doesn't upset me at all. As long as you aren't attacking or stealing from me or any innocent person, what you do is none of my business.
-
Don't forget to order some Time's Up patches!
.
Tuesday, August 05, 2014
Privacy violations won’t keep us safe
Privacy violations won’t keep us safe
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 4, 2014)
You are being spied on. As you read this, hackers are getting into your computer, your other electronic information, your telephone, and possibly even watching you with cameras (including the webcam on your computer- even if it's turned off). And the worst culprits, capable of doing the most harm, work for governments you may support. It's not just the federal employees, either.
"If you have nothing to hide, why would you care?"
The above is pretty much the standard response when those who love liberty try to warn anyone else of their information being stolen.
As if secrecy were somehow wrong, which it isn't, unless you are using secrecy to escape scrutiny of your violations of others- like the crime of spying on just about everyone in order to gain information to use against them. In such a case the secrecy still isn't wrong, in and of itself; only the violations you are hiding. But this is not even a fraction of the whole picture.
The issue has never really been about secrecy; it's about privacy. If you don't value your privacy why don't you publish your bank account information and all your passwords somewhere, right now, for everyone to see?
Why would you bother putting curtains on your windows at home, and why not do everything you normally do in private right out in the open for all the world to watch?
Oh, now you care?
It's not you who needs to show a reason for your life to remain private; it's that no one else has any right- and certainly no "authority"- to violate your privacy in this way in order to use your information as justification for using coercion against you.
By insisting on your privacy you are simply expressing your right as an individual- and anyone violating your privacy is the one who should be defending his actions- and the bar should be set impossibly high.
If you are paying attention you know Edward Snowden has exposed what the enemies of your privacy and your liberty are doing. Yes, privacy and liberty are inseparably linked. And, it seems, each time the responsible officials deny the new revelations just enough more information is released to expose their latest denial as, shall we say, less than honest. The process keeps repeating. It would be funny if the implications weren't so serious.
Yet, it seems the majority of Americans see no problem with this- as long as they believe it keeps their fearful hides safe.
It doesn't, and never could, but those who are spying on you will never admit this inconvenient fact to you. Their power depends on keeping you in the dark.
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 4, 2014)
You are being spied on. As you read this, hackers are getting into your computer, your other electronic information, your telephone, and possibly even watching you with cameras (including the webcam on your computer- even if it's turned off). And the worst culprits, capable of doing the most harm, work for governments you may support. It's not just the federal employees, either.
"If you have nothing to hide, why would you care?"
The above is pretty much the standard response when those who love liberty try to warn anyone else of their information being stolen.
As if secrecy were somehow wrong, which it isn't, unless you are using secrecy to escape scrutiny of your violations of others- like the crime of spying on just about everyone in order to gain information to use against them. In such a case the secrecy still isn't wrong, in and of itself; only the violations you are hiding. But this is not even a fraction of the whole picture.
The issue has never really been about secrecy; it's about privacy. If you don't value your privacy why don't you publish your bank account information and all your passwords somewhere, right now, for everyone to see?
Why would you bother putting curtains on your windows at home, and why not do everything you normally do in private right out in the open for all the world to watch?
Oh, now you care?
It's not you who needs to show a reason for your life to remain private; it's that no one else has any right- and certainly no "authority"- to violate your privacy in this way in order to use your information as justification for using coercion against you.
By insisting on your privacy you are simply expressing your right as an individual- and anyone violating your privacy is the one who should be defending his actions- and the bar should be set impossibly high.
If you are paying attention you know Edward Snowden has exposed what the enemies of your privacy and your liberty are doing. Yes, privacy and liberty are inseparably linked. And, it seems, each time the responsible officials deny the new revelations just enough more information is released to expose their latest denial as, shall we say, less than honest. The process keeps repeating. It would be funny if the implications weren't so serious.
Yet, it seems the majority of Americans see no problem with this- as long as they believe it keeps their fearful hides safe.
It doesn't, and never could, but those who are spying on you will never admit this inconvenient fact to you. Their power depends on keeping you in the dark.
Laws fail the stated purpose, but stay around
Time after time, new "laws" against texting while driving have done absolutely nothing to cut down on the number of accidents. Yet, no government employee or statist seems willing to give up and abolish those "laws".
Seems odd... if you assume "safety" is the intent.
But it's not, is it?
Nope.
The only thing that would change if those "laws" were abandoned is the ruling gang would lose one excuse to rob you. That's it; that's all.
Is texting while driving dangerous? Quite probably. But "laws" are not the solution. They never are.
.
Seems odd... if you assume "safety" is the intent.
But it's not, is it?
Nope.
The only thing that would change if those "laws" were abandoned is the ruling gang would lose one excuse to rob you. That's it; that's all.
Is texting while driving dangerous? Quite probably. But "laws" are not the solution. They never are.
.
Monday, August 04, 2014
If there's no hope, why bother?
A while back I tried to point out to the anti-immigrant folks (who usually claim to be only anti-illegal immigration, as if that has any meaning) that their current chosen response is only going to ensure that the new immigrants v*te for the Democrat branch of the national socialist party rather than for the Republican variety.
I got a couple of variations of the same objection:
No one else (libertarians, Republicans, LPers) will ever be willing (or able) to give the immigrants as much as the Democrats give them, so no one else can ever hope to win over the new immigrants.
If "we" can't out-give Democrats, and if that's all that matters, then "we" have already lost and had better come up with a different plan. All the borderism in the world won't solve that problem, since over half of the "citizens" living here feel the same way. "Lazy, greedy immigrants" would only hasten the inevitable, but not cause it.
But, if that's all that matters, why do I not v*te for Democrats? Why don't those making this claim v*te for Democrats? After all, the "free stuff" is there for anyone to take, as long as they say or do the "right" things. If "free stuff" is all that matters to humans, why aren't you v*ting Democratic, too?
Why do anti-migration folks think new immigrants are all clones of one another with no independent thoughts and who have no other consideration but "Free stuff!"? And why do they think liberty and self responsibility are so unattractive? Didn't they themselves (at least the ones who've rejected The State completely) embrace it? It must not be too disgusting. Do they really believe that they are so different from any other humans anywhere else on the planet?
And, again- if the Democrats' promises to give away stuff is what really matters, then liberty, or any chance for it, is already lost.
And maybe they are right.
If that's the case you'd better stop wasting your time and energy on politics and v*ting, or screaming about "illegals", and you'd better just prepare for TEOTWAWKI.
.
I got a couple of variations of the same objection:
No one else (libertarians, Republicans, LPers) will ever be willing (or able) to give the immigrants as much as the Democrats give them, so no one else can ever hope to win over the new immigrants.
If "we" can't out-give Democrats, and if that's all that matters, then "we" have already lost and had better come up with a different plan. All the borderism in the world won't solve that problem, since over half of the "citizens" living here feel the same way. "Lazy, greedy immigrants" would only hasten the inevitable, but not cause it.
But, if that's all that matters, why do I not v*te for Democrats? Why don't those making this claim v*te for Democrats? After all, the "free stuff" is there for anyone to take, as long as they say or do the "right" things. If "free stuff" is all that matters to humans, why aren't you v*ting Democratic, too?
Why do anti-migration folks think new immigrants are all clones of one another with no independent thoughts and who have no other consideration but "Free stuff!"? And why do they think liberty and self responsibility are so unattractive? Didn't they themselves (at least the ones who've rejected The State completely) embrace it? It must not be too disgusting. Do they really believe that they are so different from any other humans anywhere else on the planet?
And, again- if the Democrats' promises to give away stuff is what really matters, then liberty, or any chance for it, is already lost.
And maybe they are right.
If that's the case you'd better stop wasting your time and energy on politics and v*ting, or screaming about "illegals", and you'd better just prepare for TEOTWAWKI.
.
Sunday, August 03, 2014
Idolizing the bad guys
You may have seen the story about the Albuquerque "Make A Wish" SWAT kid.
So very sad on several different levels.
Yeah, I understand the kid is sick, and all they are doing is making him happy. But, what does it say when innocent kids want to be the most scummy, violent parasites among us? How does one come to idolize such vermin?
Don't bother answering- I know the tragic answer.
Would Make A Wish let a kid become an honorary rapist or armed robber for his wish, too? If not, why would they play favorites?
I realize this kid wouldn't actually go on any SWATtings- so a kid who wants to be a robber or a rapist could just pretend, and hang out with real robbers and rapists, without carrying through the evil acts committed by those he idolizes, either. So why pretend there's a difference when there really isn't?
.
So very sad on several different levels.
Yeah, I understand the kid is sick, and all they are doing is making him happy. But, what does it say when innocent kids want to be the most scummy, violent parasites among us? How does one come to idolize such vermin?
Don't bother answering- I know the tragic answer.
Would Make A Wish let a kid become an honorary rapist or armed robber for his wish, too? If not, why would they play favorites?
I realize this kid wouldn't actually go on any SWATtings- so a kid who wants to be a robber or a rapist could just pretend, and hang out with real robbers and rapists, without carrying through the evil acts committed by those he idolizes, either. So why pretend there's a difference when there really isn't?
.
Saturday, August 02, 2014
Fear and loathing traps the bad guys
The people who call themselves "government" are terrified of you.
I see it everywhere.
More and more government buildings are surrounded by concrete barriers.
Roads are constantly closed near government buildings.
Government buildings are having their entrances closed for "access control".
These cowards are trapped in their own "safety cages"- and I can't figure out the sense of letting them ever venture out.
And, of course, any "mundane" such as you or me must be electronically stripped naked before entering to make sure we aren't exercising any rights which "shall not be infringed", but which make it dangerous for the bad guys to violate us.
Here, even the Air Force's guy in charge of the local base is so incredibly cowardly he browbeat the local government into permanently closing a road because he said it was too hard to control, and it presented an extreme risk for his air base. And these are the clowns who statists insist must be supported to "protect" the rest of us. LOL!
Actual, real "terrorism" is almost non-existent. Pro-liberty acts which "government" spokescritters call "terrorism" aren't much more common. To spend all this stolen money to guard against something that is so rare is paranoia.
But the truth is, all these precautions are because of you and me; not "radical Islam". They only make that excuse so you don't realize who they see as the real threat to their scam.
This fear and cowardice amuses me and tells me I am on the winning side. Sure, fear can make the bad guys strike out excessively and hurt a lot of innocent people. Doing so will alienate some more of their supporters, though. They have to realize, subconsciously at least, that their time is running out. And that makes me smile.
.
I see it everywhere.
More and more government buildings are surrounded by concrete barriers.
Roads are constantly closed near government buildings.
Government buildings are having their entrances closed for "access control".
These cowards are trapped in their own "safety cages"- and I can't figure out the sense of letting them ever venture out.
And, of course, any "mundane" such as you or me must be electronically stripped naked before entering to make sure we aren't exercising any rights which "shall not be infringed", but which make it dangerous for the bad guys to violate us.
Here, even the Air Force's guy in charge of the local base is so incredibly cowardly he browbeat the local government into permanently closing a road because he said it was too hard to control, and it presented an extreme risk for his air base. And these are the clowns who statists insist must be supported to "protect" the rest of us. LOL!
Actual, real "terrorism" is almost non-existent. Pro-liberty acts which "government" spokescritters call "terrorism" aren't much more common. To spend all this stolen money to guard against something that is so rare is paranoia.
But the truth is, all these precautions are because of you and me; not "radical Islam". They only make that excuse so you don't realize who they see as the real threat to their scam.
This fear and cowardice amuses me and tells me I am on the winning side. Sure, fear can make the bad guys strike out excessively and hurt a lot of innocent people. Doing so will alienate some more of their supporters, though. They have to realize, subconsciously at least, that their time is running out. And that makes me smile.
.
Friday, August 01, 2014
Need money- so here's a deal on patches
I am in desperate need of at least half a tank of gas. But, instead of the usual bleg, I will offer a special deal on Time's Up patches.
From now until midnight Saturday, August 2, 2014 (according to Paypal or the time stamp on your email), I will dispense with shipping and handling charges, plus, if you buy 5 (or any multiple thereof) patches, I will throw in a free one (for each 5 purchased).
My Shop
.
From now until midnight Saturday, August 2, 2014 (according to Paypal or the time stamp on your email), I will dispense with shipping and handling charges, plus, if you buy 5 (or any multiple thereof) patches, I will throw in a free one (for each 5 purchased).
My Shop
.