State-provided security ridiculous

State-provided security ridiculous

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 29, 2014.)

People claim government must provide security- by which they usually mean police and military- because security is much too important to leave to the market to provide (which they confuse with leaving it to chance), or to do without.

Yet, nothing is more important than air. Being so vital, shouldn't we let government inspect, bottle, and ration air to make certain we all get our safe and clean fair share? We'd pay higher taxes for that, right? When someone breaks the rules the government can just cut off their air supply (no, not their easy-listening '70s music, their oxygen; not the Oxygen television network, the life-sustaining atmospheric gas). That would end crime and silence malcontents quickly!

Trees, oceanic algae, and chemists would have to be regulated to prevent unauthorized oxygen production. And something would have to be done to secure the borders to prevent immigrating air from infiltrating American lungs. Not breathing at all would be better than breathing foreign air!

Yeah, it sounds silly. Pretending security must be provided by the State is just as ridiculous.

Guess what- security, like air, is all around you. It is within you and me, and between us. If only we don't pretend it has to be provided by others.

Like it or not, you are the militia, and defending your home and family- and by extension your surroundings- is best done by you. That's real security. Plus, by accepting your militia responsibility you can protect your liberty from the most dangerous of enemies: the "domestic" ones.

When the Second Amendment- the law making the passage and enforcement of "gun control" a serious crime- was being debated, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said, "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."

One path leads to security, the other, to tyranny.

So, here we are. They were allowed to get away with it. The militia failed in its duty to prevent the government from establishing its own standing military, the people generally approve and ignore the tragedy, anti-gun "laws" result in much death and suffering, and liberty is dying at an accelerating pace. And still, people clamor for more security to be bottled and distributed. We would do well to remember Gerry's quote and its implications. Or recognize the reality that security shouldn't be handled by those who fear liberty the most. Any security they promise is smoke and mirrors.

.

"Animal rights"?

Somewhere I have written it before, but I can't find it right now, so I'll write it here.

I love animals, hate people who abuse them, and I don't "believe in" "animal rights".

How's that?

If "rights" are imaginary, then that's that. End of discussion.

If "rights" are a real thing, then I don't see them as transferable between species. A mouse has no right to not be tortured, killed, and eaten by a cat. A deer has no right to not be shot and eaten by a human. A dog has no right to not be kicked by its owner.

A human also has no right to not be mauled and eaten by a bear.

Any of the victims have the right to fight back however they can, killing their attacker if possible. It's just the way it works.

Any victim of another member of its own species always has the right to fight back, too. Are you listening, enforcers and freelance thugs?

Pretending otherwise will get you in all sorts of trouble, and may surprise you.

I have no right to use force to stop another human from doing anything to an animal which doesn't belong to me (or to some third party who doesn't consent to him using it that way).

I do have the right to shun and publicize what I see as disgusting behavior on the part of the abuser. I have done so in the past and will continue to do so.

Humans have the choice to cause pain and terror, or to not do so. I respect those who choose not to, and I'll avoid those I know who enjoy (or just don't care about) causing suffering. I don't trust animal abusers to stop there, but suspect it would only be a short hop to expanding their activities to human victims. Even if they don't, I think anyone who callously causes suffering isn't someone I want to be around. Not my kind of people.

You also have no ethical obligation to not eat other animals. All life is paid for by death. Don't let anyone try to make you feel bad for what you eat.  I do think the way you (or your proxy) treat your food as you kill it shows whether you are a decent person or not. You also have the right to be vegetarian or "vegan" (isn't that also the word for someone/something from Vega?) if that's what you want, but it doesn't make you superior or more moral in the slightest way.

.

Bitcoin question

How can I regain access to my Bitcoin?

Long story- the computer I have been using since I began this blog 8 years ago finally totally died. It had been limping along for years, so I wasn't caught by surprise. I sold something I really didn't want to sell and bought a new one. I had saved the DAT file from the Bitcoin wallet fairly often before the computer died, and have it on a stick, but now I have no idea to translate that into moving the Bitcoin to the new computer. I also don't remember which "brand" of wallet I was using.

Any ideas?

.

How to become a good ATF agent

Have you ever heard someone make the claim that the ATF/BATFE/BATFEces are really just trying to stop "crime"? Well, I have.

Let's think about that.

First of all, they are financed and paid with stolen "tax" money. Not a good start if you want to be "good guys".

Then, not only is their agency not "constitutional" since nothing in the Constitution gives government any "authority" (not even false authority) to meddle with weapons, alcohol, or tobacco (or any other consumables or products), which means it is illegal, it is completely anti-constitutional. The "F" and "E" parts of the name being specifically forbidden to them by the Second Amendment (which I realize is routinely ignored anyway, but just use this to point out the criminal nature of the gang).

So, here's the claim that a criminal gang, financed by theft, and operating outside the statutory law written to prevent them from existing, and in total violation of Natural Law, can somehow be the "good guys", and that they are needed to prevent innocent people from being harmed.

It's so ridiculous, it's painful.

Well, there is one way they can become "good" ATF agents...

The Crimes of Clovis' Officer Brent Aguilar, and the pass given by copsuckers

Statist copsuckers just can't consider that cops are bad. Even when the evidence is right there in front of them- admitted to in the "official" police version of events.

One, when I stated that the cop was the bad guy- the one who was the aggressor, said to me:

Your statement suggests you were there, please recount your version of the events. To do otherwise would put you in the same category as some of the "advocates" who incite foolishness for recognition and profit while having no actual knowledge about anything.

Yet, this statist insists that since I wasn't there I can't know who the bad guy was- who had committed the crime- even though the cops willingly list the crimes committed by Officer Brent Aguilar and can't show a single one (other than the imaginary"crime" of "contempt of cop") committed by Brent Aguilar's victim (whom they quickly "arrested" on "unrelated" charges).

Don't believe me? Let's go through the police version of events. The car was stopped. A passenger in the back seat (Corona) asked why they were being stopped (not a crime or any reason to suspect a crime). Aguilar demanded that passenger's ID (not within his authority and therefore a crime to do so). The passenger refused (not a crime to refuse to obey an illegal order). Aguilar placed the passenger under arrest (not a real arrest, but a kidnapping, since no crime had been committed by Corona. Adding to the crimes Aguilar and the police admit he committed). Then Aguilar added another crime to the crimes he was committing by physically attacking Corona to the point he broke a cheekbone, and to cover this crime, made up the charge of "resisting arrest".

If you copsuckers dispute these events take it up with the police department. The only difference is that you and the police don't consider these things wrong if committed by cops "in the line of duty", which is an unsupportable double standard I do not subscribe to. You can support cops all you want, but they are too dangerous to allow to exist.

The only way to excuse what Officer Brent Aguilar did is to make up an imaginary double standard where a crime can't be a crime if the aggressor wears a magical talisman called a badge. And that's what copsuckers are best at. No double standards.

It's as though we can't pass judgement on a rapist until we know what his victim might have done to "deserve it", even though the rapist admits the rape occurred (but calls it "arresting sex", instead, and says she refused to identify herself, so he had to do it, and she was then guilty of "resisting sex"). We can have video of the rape happening. We can have eyewitness testimony. We can see the physical wounds. But, if we are members of the Brutal Rapist Fan Club, we must reserve judgement until some justification can be manufactured.

If you needed any evidence that copsuckers will contort themselves inside out in support of their badged gods, there you have it.

ADDED: Surprise! This isn't the first time Brent Aguilar has been a brutal thug: "Aguilar used excessive force in taking Melanie Ryan of Clovis to the ground on her concrete porch"

.

"Bad words"

I try really hard to keep certain words out of my posts. Part of the reason is that I honestly don't use them in real life (even if working on a car can make me think them), and part of the reason is if someone is going to be offended by this blog, I'd rather they were offended by the concepts and ideas I present rather than the pettiness of finding fault in the words I use to express myself.

But, I don't believe in "bad words".

I even tell my daughter there are no "bad words", even though I explain there are words that will upset her grandparents if uttered in their presence. And I have been amused at the casual way she asks if a certain word is a "bad word" or not. I guess she gets that from someone else.

But, there are words that are like a screwdriver being hammered into my ear.

Words like "patriotism", "vote", "service" (when applied to a government tool of any variety), "citizen", etc. No, they aren't "bad" words, and could even be used in good ways, but since the main way I hear them is in propping up the police state, they hurt my ears.

But I don't whine and insist people stop using those words around me- and even if I wince, no one probably notices.

.

Cop supporters are dropping the ball

Why do I get so worked up over cops?

Because I don't "need" cops (neither do you, but that's for another time) and if you're going to impose them on me, you'd better hold them to a very high standard. Much higher than anyone who doesn't live on stolen money ("taxes") and doesn't go around meddling in people's private business. To try to let them get away with anything just shows how corrupt and stupid your "system" is.

If you really like and support cops you should come down HARD on those who violate anyone in any way (you know, the "bad apples"). Otherwise you are simply part of the problem- and working hard to make it worse to the point it will explode.

Cops: If you want me to give you the benefit of the doubt, Stop living on stolen money, Stop enforcing made-up rules, Stop imposing yourself in purely consensual interactions, Stop molesting travelers for "speed", "licensing", and paperwork violations, Stop beating non-violent people, Stop demanding ID and other information which is none of your business, and Stop standing by while those "bad apples" you claim are "giving you a bad name" do any of these things. You have a choice: you can keep doing what you're doing and keep being a bad guy... or you can walk away from the "job" right now and join the ranks of the productive people you have been feeding off of all this time. It can be an instant turn around from bad guy to good guy- as long as you leave the aggression and theft behind you (doing those things freelance is no big improvement; just a minor one).

Until these things happen I will oppose the very existence of "police". They should never be allowed to roam the streets preying on people. I'd rather take my chances with the "criminals" they pretend to protect me from. There are no "good" cops.

Abolish the police!

.

The modern "God For All Seasons"

People used to blame the gods for illness and weather disasters. Now many of them blame "the government".

Ebola, "chemtrails", hurricanes, blizzards, AIDS, "crack cocaine"... the list could go on and on: I have seen all of those things attributed to actions by government.

The State's worshipers who believe government is good or "necessary" aren't the only ones who have elevated The State to godlike status. Many people who hate "government" are unwittingly doing the same thing by making The State stand in for Satan.

The State isn't that powerful. It is made up of nothing more than regular criminals who are working together against your interests while hiding behind an imaginary veil of legitimacy, but they have no magic you don't give them.

So, stop giving it to them.

.

There’s always time to be civil

There’s always time to be civil

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 22, 2014.)

It is really easy to misunderstand other people; to misinterpret their words, tone of voice, and actions. That's why you should be careful about how you react toward anyone. Don't say or do things which can't be taken back if you discover you took something wrong. It makes for fictional comedy, but real life misery.

Recently I was going to the post office, and on the sidewalk in front of me was a person who was going slowly; having some difficulty and walking with a cane.

I wanted to be nice and open the door for her, so I stepped around her to get the door. As I did so, she made a comment about being sorry she was blocking my path and making me go around her. The comment sounded sarcastic, which shocked me, since that was the furthest thing from my mind.

I told her I was just trying to get the door, and she said that was very nice of me.

But the encounter kept bothering me.

I thought about the assumptions involved, and how everyone appeared to be assuming the worst of the other person.

It certainly seemed to me that she assumed I was impatient about being behind her, and rudely leapfrogged past to get to the door. But was that what she really thought?

I wondered if instead the assumption was mine, and she hadn't actually intended anything sarcastic by her words. Maybe I was reading something into it which wasn't there.

Either way, I'm glad that I didn't impulsively say something rude in response to my interpretation of what she said. If she had meant the sarcasm I thought I heard, it would have only escalated the situation; if she hadn't intended sarcasm, then I would have been the jerk.

Unless someone is physically attacking you, there is always time to be civil. It doesn't hurt you at all to refuse to return rudeness for rudeness, even when it's real.

Which ties in with being an ambassador for liberty.

Most people who advocate theft and aggression- or support those who employ one or the other- don't do it to be nasty. Most of them don't even realize what they do. Almost everyone becomes defensive when their errors are pointed out to them, choosing to dig in their heels and ignore contrary evidence with even more determination. That's just human nature. It's also human nature to never want to see yourself or your loved ones as the bad guys.

When possible, assume the best of people until they give you clear reasons not to, or are an immediate threat. Give them the opportunity to do the right thing. Maybe they'll surprise you.
.

I'll hate whom I decide to hate

There are bad guys out there. Probably fewer than Rulers and their mouthpieces in the media want me to believe. They work really hard to make me fear or hate those they want me to fear or hate for their own purposes.

And, invariably, that purpose is to make me want to be protected, or to have government punish those bad guys on my behalf. Through more "laws", stricter enforcement of those "laws", or War.

I hate to tell them- it's not working.

I'm not inclined to fear freelance bad guys.

Even if I decide to hate ISIS/ISIL, or child molesters or dog abusers or whoever, the "solution" isn't "laws" or The State. In fact, those bad guys can be dealt with better, more justly, and more ethically without relying on the bad guys of The State, their enforcers, or the "laws" they wield. They need to just get out of the way and let the chips fall where they may. Anything else they do is just protecting the other bad guys out there.

.

Coddling aggressors

When is it OK to hit a woman?

Whenever- and under the same conditions- it is OK to hit a man. And, I'd say the same applies for using force against- spanking- a child.

You have no right to initiate force, and if you do, you can expect defensive force to be used against you. Grow up and accept it and don't act shocked when it happens.

Your sex/gender, age, IQ, "job", "intentions" or anything else have zero bearing on the matter. You don't wish to be struck? Don't strike first.

I understand those who say "never hit a woman" have good intentions, and they are not under any obligation to strike back, but I think they are doing women a disservice. Treating them as if they as not capable of ethical behavior, so we must overlook this sort of thing, is insulting.

Look at it this way: would you strike a woman to save the life of a kid she was beating to death? Would you shoot a woman who was aiming a gun at you or an innocent person?

I certainly hope so.

If it's OK under those circumstances (and it most certainly is OK), then it's also OK to strike a woman who is hitting you. If you are stronger and hit harder... well, an aggressor needs to take that into account before initiating force.

It doesn't mean "society" or "The Law" will agree with you, but those institutions (or the individuals claiming to represent them) are frequently falling all over themselves to align with the wrong side, anyway. Many libertarians will probably disagree, too. Every action will have consequences- accept that and be prepared to deal with them.

Stop giving aggressors a free pass because of their sex. It only encourages them.

.

The Truth About ''Immigration''

From The Libertarian Enterprise, 9-21-2014

Basically, it's just some of my recent blogs, combined into one piece, submitted to TLE after Cathy Smith asked for submissions on the subject.

.

Understand it now?

If you believe a law is the answer, you clearly don't understand the problem.

.

Track down and drown... who?

(Let's imagine a world where voting mattered, and where the ZAP didn't...)

We should track down and drown Republican voters for always throwing the election to the Democrats! If they would just vote Libertarian like they should they wouldn't end up with Democrats in office! They need to just hold their nose for the liberty they don't want, and vote for Libertarians anyway, to keep the Democrat from winning. They always bleed votes away from the Libertarian candidate, and look where that gets us!

Well, if it were true for Republicans (and good enough for their harpy) it would be true for Libertarians.

.

"Innocent until proven guilty"?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is (was?) a concept designed to try to keep a "justice system" from becoming a corrupt rubber-stamping of the government's will.

It didn't work, but I understand why it was done.

That doesn't mean that when you know someone did something evil you have to wait until "the system" declares him guilty to know he is guilty. That's just silly.

But that's what copsuckers demand when one of their gods gets caught. Check out some of the badgefluffing comments. Looking for any justification for thuggishness, no matter how flimsy. It's really sickening.

I don't support double standards for aggressors. It is the same if you are a freelance thug. But, freelancers have a better chance of being held accountable than their "professional" counterparts, so it is especially important to not be distracted and let the "system" excuse or justify aggression by cops.

.

"For profit" prisons

I see a lot of people complaining about the vile concept of "prisons for profit". The implied "solution" they seem to be suggesting is to make governments run them all again "non-profitably".

That's a non-solution.

That's like saying since murder-for-hire is a bad thing, we should have "tax"-funded murders instead (oh, wait...). Or charity murders. The root problem isn't always how you pay for something; sometimes it's the thing you are paying for.

Prisons are the problem, not whether they are for profit or "tax" funded.

.

Updated: Officer Brent Aguilar of Clovis (NM) PD- newly registered Liberty Offender

Since this event is local to me, I feel I should help spread it around:
Passenger Asks Police Why They Were Stopped, So They Handcuffed Him Then Broke His Face

The Clovis Police department's Facebook page is doing damage control (in other words, lying and excusing and trying to deflect attention to this aggression by tax addict), and the copsuckers are helping- although at this time they are vastly outnumbered by the people who simply aren't buying the "justifications" anymore.

So, I think we have another addition to the Liberty Offender Registry: Congratulations Tax Parasite Officer Aguilar. I'll update this with your full name, you spineless pig, once I find out more information.

I'll also name your disgusting accomplices (Still believe in "good cops"? LOL)

I'll say it again: "resisting arrest", especially when it is an illegal "arrest- more accurately called a kidnapping- can NEVER be a "crime". You have an absolute right to defend yourself from kidnappers with any amount of force it takes to stop them- yes, even deadly force. Every single time a kidnapping of this sort is attempted I would love to see the kidnapper dead.

Watch below for updates and more links.

UPDATE: Seems it was Officer Brent Aguilar who was the brutal pig: link

"Corona was charged with concealing his identity and resisting arrest"

So, if I demand to know who someone is- without any cause whatsoever- and they refuse, it's a "crime". Good. So now let's see Brent Aguilar charged with the same crime since he and the police chief concealed his identity. Abolish the police.

UPDATE 2: You knew it was coming: Officer Brent Aguilar's victim has been kidnapped, charged with "felony aggravated assault and battery". Expose the crimes of a cop, expect retaliation. And, he didn't simply "accuse" Brent Aguilar- video evidence and eyewitness testimony backed him up. Even if he had said nothing, the evidence would have been there- in fact, he wasn't the one who recorded or released the video of the crime.

UPDATE 3: Apparently Aguilar has a history of brutal, thuggish behavior. How many other Clovis cops simply haven't yet been exposed for the same thing? All of them?

.

An impossible "free society"?

The next time you hear some "pragmatic" person tell you there will never- CAN never be a "free society", just remember how few years it took to adopt a collectivist, socialist system in America.

A really bizarre, unnatural and broken "system" which can't work- never has worked any time it has been tried, and never will work unless humans evolve into some sort of drone organism, has been "successfully" imposed on people who still believe they are the "anti-socialists". And even though they suffer the failures on a daily basis, they still refuse to see what has happened.

But we're the crazy ones for suggesting a free society is possible, and working to make it happen.

So, yes, a free society is possible, no matter how unlikely it may seem today. And it can happen a lot faster than you imagine if more people simply start implementing it in their own lives instead of worrying that it will never be and seeking reasons why.

.

Self control highest responsibility

Self control highest responsibility

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 15, 2014.)

Liberty, responsibility, and happiness are intimately entwined.

Liberty is the freedom to do absolutely anything which doesn't violate anyone else's identical and equal liberty. It really is that simple; it's how responsible people behave.

Living by liberty can lead to happiness if you're not careful.

Some disturbed people aren't content with living their own liberty because it means staying out of the way of others. These people seem driven to meddle and prevent others from living a life of full liberty.

Often they take issue with the choices others make; calling them "libertines" or pointing out that some people will always be irresponsible. Until a person's choices violate the liberty of someone else, it's no one's business, and not within anyone's authority to interfere. You have no right to violate the liberty of others simply because some people might act irresponsibly or make choices which offend a "majority".

Your highest responsibility is to control yourself, not to enforce your ideas of responsibility on others- which seems to be very difficult for a lot of people in today's meddlesome society.

Every human interaction should be strictly voluntary. When someone breaks that indispensable rule of civilization and forces themselves or their way upon you, self defense becomes a legitimate option- even if the other person feels they were right in their actions toward you. They may point to "laws" they claim allow them to impose on you, or say they are doing it for your own good, or even worse, "for the children" or "for the good of society". Those excuses are always lies.

Some people get an empty substitute for happiness- and may even believe it's the real deal- from violating people. Don't be those people. You can't truly be happy while violating others and restricting their happiness.

If you honestly worry about someone else's choices, you have every right to warn them and try to convince them to see things your way. They may listen and change course, of their own free will, or they may keep doing what they are doing. It is then your responsibility to walk away. Later, you may choose to help them if your warnings were not heeded and their choice leads to problems, but you're not obligated to save them. And forcing yourself on others, even if motivated by genuine love and concern, is wrong.

Your responsibility is to do only those things you have a right to do. Respecting liberty means you must accept the right of everyone to make their own mistakes and either learn from them, or not, without overstepping your bounds. I know you can do it!

.

More gun stuff from Julie

I've been busy and distracted, and I neglected to share a few things from the Julie on Politics blog.

• First is this bit about some gun rights-respecting sheriffs. Well, sort of.

As I noted in an email to Julie:

Any sheriff who claims to defend the Second Amendment- but still enforces the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of '68 (and any other anti-gun edict)- is a liar. They are playing politics to appeal to a certain segment of the voters rather than being a real defender of gun rights. I realize they can't keep the "tax"-funded "job" without compromising, but that just means an honest person wouldn't accept the "job" in the first place.

The Second Amendment- if I could go back in time and write it from scratch- would be a lot simpler. It would state "Anyone who tries to take your guns is fair game". Because that is the moral reality, if not the "law".

Of course, a Second Amendment isn't necessary unless you make the stupid mistake of allowing a State to exist.

• Then, she has an update on Shaneen Allen. I wrote about her- and the abuse she is suffering- before. It makes me sick. Julie writes: "Women like Shaneen Allen should have the right to protect themselves." 

Well, they do. But evil thugs- from the cop who kidnapped her, to the parasites in the "justice system" who are continuing the molestation of Ms. Allen- are very enthusiastic to violate that right. I would like to see my re-writing of the Second Amendment mentioned above applied liberally in every case like this. I will never grieve any cop or politician who dies in the act of committing a gun theft. Never.

• Then, she writes about another tragedy, and a bittersweet turn it has taken: Children Of Shooting Instructor Write Letter To 9 Year Old Who Accidentally Killed Him.   

I haven't said anything about this accident, because there just isn't much to say. Accidents happen, and it is always tempting to start placing blame. We all do things that could have- or should have- killed us. If nothing happened we may not even be aware of it. 

I'm glad the dead man's kids are reaching out to the girl. I hope their forgiveness (if it was even needed) brings her comfort. And, I hope, just like falling off a bike, she will try shooting again.

.

Paralyzed by fiction

When I watch certain movies and TV programs I find myself feeling the world is much more scary and violent than it has proven to be in my experience of real life. And then I think of all the people who use these scary things as justification for not acting on making their own lives more liberated.

That makes me wonder if the people who always bring up the "evil warlord" and "rampaging gangs flowing across the countryside" objections to a voluntary society watch too much violent fiction. Or, at least, believe the fiction too strongly.

I'm not saying you shouldn't watch fictional programs, but remember they are fiction!

You can spend your time worrying about magical wizards, dragons, zombies, and spacetime portals swallowing you up if that's what you choose to do, but don't allow those concerns to paralyze you. That would be sad. The same goes for all sorts of unlikely justifications for The State.

And, yes, I realize really nasty powerful (freelance) bad guys, evil warlords, and rampaging gangs are more probable than magical wizards and dragons, but just barely. And if you live where those things are probable (generally due to too much governing going on in the first place), you should really consider moving.

.

"Pink slime"- no, not that kind...

When you hear of "pink slime", do you think of this?:

Next time, think of this, instead:

Found here

Notice the "Pink market". Those things which are immoral/unethical, but "legal" anyway.

Now, consider the "Red market"- immoral/unethical and "illegal"- for a minute.

A murderer might kill a kid who would grow up to be the next Chairman Mao, and therefore save millions of innocent future lives.

A thief might steal a family's TV thereby freeing up a kid's mind to discover reading or experiencing life first-hand.

A rapist might discover a lump in his victim's breast, and might make her aware of it with a crude comment, saving her life in the process.

A slave owner might have prevented a person from starving to death by enslaving him.

You still don't argue that the above people are good or necessary. Any "benefit" to their "red market" activities would be better done without violating people or property. The bad guys are still bad, even if they accidentally do something good.

In the same way, looking at the "pink market" examples...

War might save a culture and particular individuals by killing other individuals.

Taxation might fund a family's food and housing- either through welfare or a government job (but I repeat myself).

State torture might get information that saves some lives- either innocent lives or government employees' lives.

Imprisonment might remove some violent and thieving people from society.

Compulsory education might force some kids to learn, and might give some a damaged sort of socialization.

I would also add that a cop might stop a bad guy from victimizing an innocent person, and an FBI profiler might stop a serial murderer.

But to argue that the above activities (and the people who commit them) are good or necessary ignores the fact that they are all funded through theft (which is enforced with the threat of death), and the harm they do to society (by harming individuals) is greater than any benefit. And, any "system" that doesn't allow you to opt out is aggressive by nature, rather than peaceful and voluntary.

Sometimes I think I can be a miserable b**tard. Such as when I express my hatred of government schools in the presence of someone who worships that pink market monstrosity. I don't bring it up on my own, because I don't like to dwell on the negative. But when I am exposed to praise and support of such a vile institution, over and over, without end, I am going to speak up, and the Believers aren't going to like it.

It's hard since most of my relatives work in government schools in one capacity or another, leading the rest to praise those child abuse institutions. But, they know if they keep pushing, I'm going to speak up.

.

Lowering property values

What if you buy a house in a "nice neighborhood", and then a few months later someone buys the house next door and paints it purple with yellow polka dots and has "Ugly People Mud Wrestling" in their front yard every night?

You might complain that they have lowered your property values.

If that can make the local "tax" thieves demand a lower yearly ransom you should be grateful, as long as you aren't trying to sell your house. Put up a tall fence, or enjoy making fun of the show.

But, even if you are trying to sell, why assume that this development would automatically be seen the same way by every potential buyer? Because it won't. Maybe someone would like to buy your house to put a concession stand in the front yard, and bleachers, and charge admission so people can point and laugh.

But, again, even if it does reduce the resale value, have you been "taken from"? Has someone taken value away from you in a way that makes them owe restitution?

I don't believe so.

Lots of things can reduce the value of your property.

If a visitor to your home damages your TV so that it no longer gets one particular channel, they have reduced the value of your TV. They owe restitution.

If the owner of your favorite TV network decides to close up shop (or cancel Firefly!), he has also reduced the value of your TV to you. But, as upsetting as his actions may be, he doesn't owe you restitution. Your TV would still be as valuable to someone whose tastes and preferences differed from yours.

Just like your house next to the Ugly Naked Muddy Clown House.

.

Arrogance or confidence?

I really don't want to be a nominee for "The B.H. Obama Award for Outstanding Arrogance". But, a couple of times in my life I have been scolded for arrogance by statists.

Plus, I do think I suffer from "Resting Smug Face" (is that better than "RBF"?).

I think what they mistake for arrogance is actually confidence based upon years of looking at the evidence and reality.

I didn't come to these conclusions lightly- or independently. Sometimes it was even painful, and I had to be dragged kicking and screaming. But, even the tough questions don't disprove the idea that liberty is better than slavery.

I'll always look for counter evidence. I'm suspecting it will never be found.

.

Cutting to the heart

“If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one. ” ~ Robert LeFevre

I honestly believe that realization cuts to the very heart of the matter. It demolishes every single justification for The State in one fell swoop.

The reality is that people are good, evil, and ambivalent. Each of us has probably been all three at different times. But, give a person political power and the evil will be strengthened and encouraged. Positively selected for.

If you could guarantee a method of making sure only good people were given political power, and would remain good while having it, so they could "govern" the evil and ambivalent people in society... I still wouldn't need government. But, I'd be content to let you engage in your silly little game- since being good would mean you'd leave me completely alone unless I initiated force or theft.

But since evil people are drawn to the power politics gives them, and the few good people who accidentally gain political power are quickly corrupted by it, your system fails every single time. And evil people with political power are much, much worse than evil people who are forced to do evil without the veil of legitimacy government seems to convey.

I don't dare support government of any kind, for any reason. It's just too dangerous to risk.

.

"Government of the gaps"

You have probably heard of "The God of the gaps", where the unexplained is attributed to God/gods, but new discoveries shrink the unexplained, leaving less and less room for the supernatural to be the best explanation for observed phenomena.

Well, "The Government of the gaps" is very similar.

It's where people say "how would the mail get delivered without government running a postal service?"... until FedEx and UPS and email show exactly how.

Or any other thing "only government can do", until someone else does it.

It's why I am amused every time someone asks "But who would build the roads?" They are appealing to "The Government of the gaps"- and it makes them look rather dumb.

.

Happiness possible in police state

Happiness possible in police state

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 8, 2014.)

Perfect happiness. It may not be possible as a permanent condition in life, but you can still experience moments of perfect happiness if you know where, and how, to look.

Even while people calling themselves "government" work to steal happiness right out of your pocket and regulate or criminalize the bits they can't take.

If you can't find some happiness in a police state, you probably wouldn't be happy in a free society, either. There will always be something to complain about, and there will always be thieves and bullies trying to bring you down to their level. Don't let them.

Happiness and freedom mean doing exactly what you want to be doing right now- even if it doesn't appear wonderful to people looking in from the outside. As long as you are respecting the rights of everyone else to do the same, it's no one's business what you do.

So, what little moments of perfect happiness do I find?

A few nights ago I sat out under the stars. The temperature was perfect and no mosquitoes were bothering me. As I sat there looking up I saw a meteor flash across the sky. I listened to cattle in the distance, and heard the hooting of an owl a time or two. There was nothing I would have preferred to be doing right then.

Earlier in the day I had felt joy while listening to a woman talking about one of her life's passions- and even more joy because what she loved to do was entirely voluntary and violated no one in any way.

My daughter often brings me these moments, as well.

Almost every day I'll suddenly think "Right this moment, I am really happy!"

I want others to feel this same contentment and freedom, doing things which make them happy while not violating others or their property. I am content to leave you alone to pursue your own happiness, and I want others to not meddle in your life, as well.

Sometimes, I even feel happiness when exposed to the liberty-killing coercion of government. I recently felt amusement, exhilaration, and joy watching a man rip up a citation from some wildlife officers, put it in a trash can, turn his back, and walk away as they gaped after him. Little acts of self-ownership such as this are very inspiring. It gives me hope there is still a little of the American spirit left in the people of the USA; the spirit which doesn't automatically bow down to "authorities" and reflexively comply with their demands. Yes, life is good.

.

"Everybody got a gris-gris."

Penn Jillette said it: "Everybody got a gris-gris."

Everyone else's "gris-gris" are easy to see: gods, governments, "good cops", whatever. No basis in rationality whatsoever, but they are "believed in" regardless. Some may even be helpful for some individuals to hang onto- others are neutral and some are decidedly harmful.

Some of my own are easy for me to see. I even have a medicine bag, for crying out loud- a physical "gris-gris". Although I don't believe it has any "power"- I see it as a scrap book in buckskin more than anything else. But it is what it is.

I also don't automatically discount sightings of Sasquatch as hoaxes or hallucinations or mis-identifications, and the same goes for UFOs. I could be wrong.

However, I also accept that everything I believe may be nothing but a gris-gris. So I try to dig into them to see whether they are or not. Maybe liberty really isn't good for humans. Maybe The State is necessary, and isn't always evil*. Maybe guns aren't useful tools, and unless you are a cop or in the military they just endanger innocent lives.

And maybe "borders" are necessary, even if Massively Big, Omnipresent Government, "taxation", and socialism are essential to maintaining and "defending" them.

If I'm wrong, I want to know.

But, I also don't constantly dwell on whether each thing I believe is a gris-gris. If new information crops up, I try to honestly evaluate it. I have changed my mind about many things over the years, when presented with a good enough argument. So far, each time I do, though,I move a little more toward liberty and eliminate more exceptions where government can hide. It has been a one-way process, going on my whole life. I used to hold some beliefs I ditched when exposed to new, more, or better information- or experience. It's why I used to be a minarchist, but am now an anarchist. I recognized some gris-gris I was holding to, and I tossed them aside. I can do without that extra weight. I'll bet you can, too.

-

*Maybe a troll site- it's so absurd I am just not sure.

.

Martial Law

The recent events in Ferguson, Missouri- government created and government escalated events- almost resulted in martial law being declared, according to some reports.

I see martial law as a declaration of war being made by those who imagine themselves to be "government" against the people of the area. It doesn't matter what excuse is used to justify the imposition of martial law since it affects the innocent a lot more than it affects the guilty. When government employees declare they can kill people for doing things they have every right to do, it sure looks like war.

But there's another side to that.

Once someone declares war on you, you should assume that anyone associated with "that side" intends you harm, and- as a credible threat- they can be dealt with accordingly.

So, a declaration of martial law means it's "open season" on enforcers, politicians, and other government employees in the affected area (or who claim jurisdiction over that area, no matter where they may cower)- ALL government employees in the area who don't immediately quit their "job" and publicly condemn The State unconditionally are choosing their side and making themselves fair game.

I'd hate to be them.

.

Coming up with any excuse for The State

A while back I saw a really silly, desperate grasp at justification for government:

"what do you think life will be like when anarchy rules and your fat, ugly next door neighbor decides to mate with his pet sheep in the front yard whilst playing hip hop through gigantic, window rattling speakers?"

And, what do you do if this happens now, under the US police state?

I certainly wouldn't call the cops on my strange neighbor. The cops might shoot him, and I don't think his behavior should be a capital offense. And, seeing how often it happens, I don't think it's worth the risk of being shot, myself, when the testosterone crazed cowards show up. And I value my daughter too much to invite cops into her presence.

As they say, "good fences make good neighbors", and if you live near enough to see other people on their own property from your house, you probably ought to invest in a fence if you worry about what you'll see.

"What you'll hear" is a more difficult matter, but again, distance is the cure for that. Or, just sit outside and enjoy it. Or, blast your own antidote on your own property and drown out what you don't want to hear. Plus, aren't there now computers which can neutralize sound? In a free market, those would probably get better, cheaper, and more common- just for things like the neighbor and his giant speakers.

It really bewilders me that people actually worry about things like this happening, and can't think of any way to "protect" themselves from it that don't involve aggression, theft, or that huge, gluttonous Combo Meal of the two: The State.

.

Borderists expose their confusion

If you've seen an online argument over "immigration" I'm sure you've seen this. Some smug "conservative" collectivist will think he is whipping out his "Gotcha!" and waving it around:

"If you don't mind illegal immigrants then you won't mind if I move into your house. What's your address?"

Sigh. It's as embarrassing as when Creationists try to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to support their position.

In their socialistic little minds, they (or The State) "own" all the land called "America" (or "The USA" as the case may be) just like I own my house. Only, apparently, since they are socialistic collectivists, they think the State's claim on my house comes first, too. So, since they don't recognize private property rights, I guess it would seem reasonable to them to move into my house.

Since I do recognize private property rights, I know I have no right to move into their house, nor to assert a collective claim on the whole land, including their property.

I sympathize with some of the anti-migrant feelings. But to use that argument just shows you're an idiot- and a collectivist one at that.

.

So long, JPFO, and thanks for the memories.

The Second Amendment Foundation has taken over JPFO. Which means, no matter what else happens, JPFO is dead. Its zombified corpse may serve as a pretty little meat puppet (and fund raiser) for the SAF for a while, but make no mistake, it is dead and gone.

Massad Ayoob approves, which should be enough to make any liberty lover pause until the chills subside. Ayoob is a well-known "gun rights advocate" who always puts enforcers and their "safety" and "authority" above actual gun rights, which he places beneath State whims, anyway (according to the stuff of his I have read in the past). If he weren't an actual cop he would still be an enthusiastic copsucker. One simply can't overlook that huge failing.

I will be removing all references to JPFO from KentForLiberty.com over the next few days, but I won't edit out the references from the past on this blog. Aaron Zelman left an important legacy- which has now been crapped all over by anti-liberty bigots and the traitors of the JPFO board of directors.

Too bad those "directors" didn't take one of the reasonable alternatives which were offered, but chose to destroy JPFO, instead. What does that tell you about them, personally?

It is a sad day in the ongoing- and now smaller- fight for real gun rights and human liberty.

R.I.P, JPFO. You will be missed.

(When the news first broke...)

.

A poor substitute for justice

The justice system is such a poor substitute for justice- a farce, really- that most people can't even fathom justice anymore. It has been erased from the range of possibilities their minds can even consider.

So, instead of justice, they expect imprisonment and punishment.

Instead of restitution, people expect fines.

Instead of self defense, they expect cops to come save their sorry, cowardly hides.

And, it's all because a worthless "justice system" was allowed to replace justice.

Well, there is no substitute for justice. Don't expect me to support your useless system.

Sure, I would accept "jury duty" if allowed- if only because that is a concrete way to thwart the schemes of the state. But I only see that as a way to help people avoid getting caught up in something that never serves justice anyway. Justice for the guilty comes separately.

.

Selling historical artifacts of The State -UPDATED-

If you like old statist control and tracking devices- or know someone who does- I am selling some Texas license plates from the 1960s on eBay. Most are "Farm Truck" plates. The ones I just now listed are all shown below, but there will be more in the coming days (or weeks).

Update: I just added some "Texas farm trailer" plates. Still more to come.

Look for me on eBay: dullhawk1840

Time's Up patches!

Don't forget: I now have "Time's Up" patches available!

They measure 3" X 2", and are "sew on" patches.

They are $5 each, with $1 shipping and handling. I will give substantial breaks on shipping and handling for multiples.

Paypal accepted (use my regular "dullhawk" address shown elsewhere on this blog), or contact me (at that same email) to work out other arrangements.

Thanks!

.

8 years ago...

It all started with this: Hello

.

Zombie entertainment

Voting is like playing a video game.

Lots of flash and noise, and immediate results that accomplish nothing beyond entertainment.

People feel they are doing something while voting and talking about voting.

They complain about those who refuse to play- or those who play but don't take it seriously.

But politics and voting will never accomplish anything worthwhile.

.

Property standards another control

Property standards another control

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 1, 2014.)

One topic being raised in almost all the communities in this area is that of keeping your property to particular standards which other people prefer, under threat of government action.

Maybe it concerns weeds, "junk", prairie dogs, or "public property" you have been assigned responsibility for. People are being told they need to make their property pleasing to others "voluntarily", or it will be forced on them by "law".

The big problem, besides the atrocity of wielding "laws" to violate property rights, is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I have to admit- I don't care for lawns. Never have. Sure, they have their place, and I wouldn't forbid anyone from maintaining one, but I think they are ugly and plain. Around these parts, they are also terribly wasteful and precarious.

If I had my choice I would cultivate a native area around my house, which around here would mean wild grasses, yucca, prickly pear, mesquite, and other interesting, useful (and edible) plants the uninformed might call "weeds". Yes, I know some of those may not be exactly native, but they are historical, and adapted to survive the local conditions without wasting water to keep them clinging to life.

I would also welcome prairie dogs, jackrabbits, cottontails, and whatever else chose to live there. Except mosquitoes.

If I had this yard, and I lived in town, I would be willing to put up a privacy fence to protect my neighbors' delicate sensibilities from having to gaze upon what I consider the most beautiful yard possible for this area.

In this way I also wouldn't have to look at the neighbors' lawns.

On the other hand, I hate junk and litter. Yet, I know what I see as "junk", others might see as treasures, or useful materials for projects. Their stuff is beautiful in their eyes, and it's none of my business. I would never dream of using the blunt instrument of government to force them to make their property look the way I would prefer it to look. My business ends at my property lines.

I can't relate to the withered souls who somehow believe controlling other people's property is their right. It's a sickness in desperate need of a cure.

Once you enshrine the belief that the majority can enforce "community standards" against how others must maintain their property, you give others permission to do the same to you in the future, when the community changes and the standards have become something you dislike.

You are selling your future liberty for immediate gratification, using whatever justification you can invent. It will come back to bite you.

.

Voting to impose religion

Many people want their religion imposed on the rest of us so badly that it's their only consideration.

It's why they vote and how they vote. Everything else is secondary, and liberty gets swept aside because it would mean people making choices- voluntarily, consensually, and without coercion- which would be against the religion's rules for its followers.

Of course, it doesn't matter at all whether the people whose liberty is being violated belong to that same religion or not. Everyone must obey "The One Way" regardless of anything else, and no matter whether "The One Way" respects liberty and rejects the initiation of force or embraces evil with the excuse that "it's what God demands".

It's Sharia Law, no matter which religion is pushing it. I find it rather vile and distasteful and think those pushing it should be ashamed and resisted in their attempts.

.

MIB sighting scrambles my brain

Recently I saw something that made me consider actually heading straight for the nearest police station.

What on earth would make that course seem reasonable?

As I was driving along a back road I saw a solid black car with very dark-tinted windows and a driver's side spot light (also solid black) but no markings whatsoever. Of course, I instantly thought "government". It looked like something the Men in Black (the "real" myth, not the Will Smith movie version) would drive.

It was pulled off the side of the road in a rather random way- almost looking like an accident.

I drove on past. After a mile or two, I saw it coming up behind me. I wasn't "speeding" or anything- not that it matters to the enforcer vermin. But he passed me and got behind a car which had been several car lengths ahead of me the whole time- and which also was never "speeding" or doing anything any enforcer could frown upon. The MIB car's turn signals were very different from any I had ever seen- very high-tech and a line of little orange lights in the rear window. And it was sporting a New Mexico government license plate.

He followed for a mile or so, and after the road we were all on came to an intersection, and the followed car turned right (as I also did after him), the MIB car turned on some flashing lights unlike any I had ever seen on an enforcer vehicle- they were the same little orange lights that had served as the turn signals. As I passed I saw the odd red flashing lights in my rear view mirror which were in his front window. There may have been blue flashers on the passenger side, but the car he had pulled over was blocking my view somewhat.

Something didn't feel right on many levels.

I was thinking I wouldn't have stopped for that car without witnesses around. The nearest place I could have counted on to have witnesses was the police station a mile or so on down the road. Unsettling thought. They would have probably rolled over for anything the MIB car's occupants wanted. But, sometimes, you can get various enforcers to fight for "jurisdiction"- which might help the situation.

Quickly I realized that is probably a losing proposition no matter what, once the MIB alert to your car. Absent a button to push to instantly neutralize the threat and erase any record of them noticing you, you're going to take damage.

It's really disturbing when something can make me think- for even a minute- that it might be "smart" to go to police for "help".

.