Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Required vaccination brings red flag

Required vaccination brings red flag

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 27, 2015)

I know of a lot of people who are very vocal against vaccinations. They have their reasons, although I am less than convinced. I rarely believe in “one size fits all” solutions. This can make me unpopular with both sides.

I would say I am generally in favor of vaccinations — the ones that work, anyway. And, the ones where the targeted disease is actually worse than the potential harm caused by the vaccine.

Not all vaccines are equally effective, not all diseases to be vaccinated against are equally dangerous, and vaccines can and do cause harm.

"Until vaccines are as safe as say, marijuana, calling them 'safe' as a blanket statement is just plain false." -- libertarian activist, Christopher Cantwell

A couple of years ago I had a tetanus booster shot. To me the risks associated with tetanus- even considering the tiny likelihood of contracting it- are great enough that the risk of taking the vaccine wasn't even an issue. Others might disagree.

As long as you go into it understanding the risks and benefits, I won't criticize your choice.

To me, the red flag is mandatory vaccinations; something I am very much opposed to and will never support. I might try to talk you into a particular vaccination, but if you refuse I won't try to force you. If you're sick I'll probably avoid contact- just as I generally do with sick people.

If I am vaccinated against whatever you contracted, either my vaccination will protect me, or a vaccination probably wouldn't have done you any good, either. If there is any added risk to me, I am willing to accept it while standing up for your liberty. The risk is small compared to the risk of starting down the slippery slope of believing anyone has the authority to force someone to take a drug they don't want for their own good. I've seen where that inevitably leads, and it isn't healthy for anyone.

Once you start forcing people to be stabbed and have foreign substances placed inside their body "for the good of society", it is a small step to say they must give up other parts of their life, liberty, and property for society's benefit. Maybe their car is too big, their house too garish, their bank account too large, or their yard too messy. The notion that other people do not belong to you has become a very radical position, but it is still the only right one.

If you have strong feelings one way or the other about vaccinations, try to convince people and then leave them alone to live with the consequences of their choice.

Statists on parade

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil". If something is necessary it can't be evil, and if it is evil, it can't be necessary.
Try to find some other justification for the State and its enforcers and military, and "taxation", and "laws".

The above was posted on the spur of the moment as my Facebook status a couple of days ago. It attracted the attention of a government extremist. The thread is long, but you might enjoy seeing just how a statist attempts to justify their beliefs.

If you don't "do" Facebook, I understand, but you are missing some amusement. Someday, I may try to post the whole thing here, but probably not. It is long and still growing.

Here is the link; Link


Smart (people's) choices

Smart people are not necessarily better people, but smart people are more able to consciously choose to be better people. Or worse people.

It's a double-edged sword.

But dumb people don't seem to be able to even choose. They are what they are, and not capable of thinking further than that. There are good stupid people and bad stupid people (just as there are both kinds of smart people), but they can't consider why they do what they do- unless they say something about religion or god to justify themselves. Thought makes them uncomfortable. Change would be scary. Realizing they have been wrong and need to change would unthinkable (in more ways than one) if it were even possible.

I realize everyone has a sort of ethical inertia. But, it is easier to at least discuss Liberty with smart people. And more likely (in my experience) to be successful in at least getting them to consider what you say.

Be smart and make the right choices- the choice to refuse to violate others, and to withdraw your support from those who choose to continue violating others "on your behalf".


Monday, March 30, 2015

Reading "sign"

When I see rabbit tracks or pellets I know a rabbit has passed this way.

When I see deer tracks or deer poop, I know a deer has been here. By the type of poop left behind I know what the deer has been eating.

In the same way, when I see "laws" and "government" I know stupid and/or unethical people have been here. It's their "sign", as surely as tracks or poop, or their litter on the ground.


Sunday, March 29, 2015

"Safe spaces"

In thinking about my post about judgmental people, I also consider the notion of "safe spaces".

I will say I find the concept ridiculous, crippling, and childish.

No one offers anarchists a "safe space" away from depictions of The State, or even away from actually being physically and financially violated by statists and their harmful and unnecessary "laws".

Even in groups which ought to know better- and I particularly think of the Browncoat Facebook group- you'll find people saying "there has to be laws/government otherwise companies would poison me with mercury in my orange juice". Yes, someone really said that! That's a statist fallacy which "triggers" me. Where can I go to feel safe from such violent advocacy? Nowhere.

And I accept that.

It isn't "society's" responsibility to coddle my delicate feelings, making me soft and helpless.

If you can't deal with the real world, and accept that there will always be bad things out there to "trigger" you, you are not suited for survival. Not even if "compassionate" people want to wrap you in bubblewrap and place you in Nerf world. If you don't learn how to deal with reality, and with bad people and uncomfortable situations, your life will always suck.

People sometimes rape. Not because of a "culture" (unless you count the degraded culture of gangs), but because of an individual making the decision to violate the Zero Aggression Principle.

Cops are evil. The fact that you knew a "nice" one, or were saved by one once upon a time changes nothing.

Politicians are harmful to the world, and are- without exception- thieves and aggressors. Even if some are less bad than others.

Those things are reality. They may hurt your feelings and make you feel "unsafe", but that doesn't make reality go away.

So, don't look for a "safe space" and whine when reality seeps in. Take control of your surroundings and your own reaction to them. Accept uncomfortable reality. Get thicker skin. Take actions to protect yourself from actual dangers, rather than seek someone else's protection from imaginary ones. Grow up.


Saturday, March 28, 2015

Judgmental people: I am one

I recently lost a dear friend on Facebook, who was also a friend before Facebook. And it really upset me.

Earlier this week on Facebook, when I posted that I often forget how indoctrinated most people are, this person commented that they forget how judgmental most people are. I didn't even realize at the time they were referring to me, until I noticed they were no longer a Facebook friend.

But I answered the comment, anyway. At first I said some people are, but not everyone.

Then, I reconsidered.

I think everyone is judgmental- but people express it in different ways.

It is one thing to judge something as right or wrong- I suppose everyone does that. It's another thing entirely to impose your will on people doing something you see as wrong.

There are a lot of things I believe are wrong, but which I will defend people's right to do.

If you aren't stealing or attacking, I might still not agree with what you're doing, but I wouldn't use force to stop you. I might try to talk you out of it. I might shun you. I might make fun of you or say what an evil monster you are. I will only use force if I see you engaging in theft or aggression.

I'm not sure why that's such a difficult thing for some people to grasp.

I suspect this person abandoned me because of my stance against cops and the "conservative" politicians they like, although they never actually explained. (I had to go through a mutual friend to even find out anything at all, and to get an answer which involved me and my "high horse").

I can't lie to protect feelings or friendships... but it still hurts.


Thursday, March 26, 2015

"Gun control" compromise, part 2

The next time you hear someone calling for a ban on normal capacity magazines- usually, but not always, suggesting to limit them to 10 rounds maximum- ask if, in exchange for that violation of your liberty, they'd be willing to compromise.

In fact, you could use this anytime you hear any anti-gun "law" being proposed.

In exchange for a magazine limit would they then be willing to get rid of all "laws" against carrying guns with the limited magazines, or revolvers with a capacity equal to or less than this arbitrary number of rounds? Not just "Constitutional carry", but diplomatic carry. As gun owners you and I are in a foreign, hostile land, after all.

If they balk you can then scream in their face they they are unwilling to compromise, so obviously they are in favor of mass-murder of toddlers and the elderly. Hey, it's what they consistently do to gun owners.


Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Mandatory v*ting

I don't believe for a second that Obama was ever seriously considering mandatory voting. But, the thought makes me smile.

If voting were mandatory, and I couldn't figure out a way to avoid it anyway, I would have fun with it.

I would vote for the most incompetent candidate I could find. Or the most overtly evil. I would do everything possible to mess up my ballot or smear the screen of the machine- not through "vandalism", but through bumbling idiocy. I would monkeywrench in every way I could think of.

Making something mandatory is the best way I know to destroy the value of it (if it even had any value before).

So, come on Obama. Bring it.


Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Evil justifies evil?

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I get tired of hearing people excuse things done by the US Empire by saying that other States do things even worse.

Waterboarding and torture are "OK" because [Islamic enemy of the day] beheads and burns people alive.

Ignoring, of course, what Hellfire missiles are designed to do, and what regular bombs also do. If we don't have to watch people having their heads ripped off or burning to death (or screen shots of the deaths, anyway), it doesn't happen. Right?

If you only have to find someone more evil to justify what you do, then there is nothing which can't be justified. I could rape and torture children to death and justify it by finding someone who was even worse. Maybe they did the same, but to one more child than me. Or maybe they were more cruelly creative. But they were "worse".

No, they weren't.

A better way is to simply not engage in evil. Yes, there will be consequences of that, too. Maybe one evil person will survive and murder again. But, if you remove him by being evil, the amount of evil hasn't gone down- it has just infected another person. It has transferred to you, and then to the person who has to kill you. Not a solution by any definition....to be continued...


Monday, March 23, 2015

Libertarian girlfriends

I thought this was cute, and true: 7 Reasons Libertarian Women Make Amazing Girlfriends*

Or, I imagine it would be true- not having any personal experience to see for myself.

Anyway, I shared the link after reading it.

It was fluff. I wasn't prepared for a negative response.

A woman commented with "Hopefully, nobody believes in this. Expecting any person as an individual to apply world at large political principles to personal relationships is naive and almost leans in the direction of collectivism."

Wait... what

She believes you can treat "society" in a civilized manner, but treat the person you love like crap? And, behaving in a non-libertarian way is treating someone like crap. It is violating their person or property. Or both.

Being civil isn't something you can switch on and off. Not consistently. If you think you can consistently treat outsiders with civility, but then have control over the people you have personal relationships with, you are fooling yourself. You might be able to pull it off to some degree, but you'll forget which mode you are in sometimes.

Anyway, I responded with "The ZAP applies at all levels. If it doesn't apply in your personal relationships, you are not libertarian. Because ALL relationships are personal."

She immediately corrected me, saying "I think that you meant NAP, which can still be intact without adherence to some of the items on this list.".

As I say, and have said for years, the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient. I doubt she would have understood the difference.
*And, of course, I think every one of those points in that "article" apply equally as well to libertarian boyfriends. Isn't that the kind of significant other you'd want, whichever gender you prefer?


Sunday, March 22, 2015


If something shouldn't be done at all, it isn't better to privatize it.

Tax collecting, policing, or helping government in any way is evil. You wouldn't praise privatized executions or rape. Why praise privatized statism?

I was scolded a while back for not being enthusiastic at a Texas town's decision to shut down its police department and replace them with a private security force- one which did the exact same things that make police the bad guys: paid through theft, enforcing counterfeit rules, violating person and property. A difference which makes no difference isn't different, and certainly isn't an improvement.

Try again.

It's a sign of the deep indoctrination to believe the function of "policing" is so necessary that if government doesn't do it, you have to replace that function with something indistinguishable. Abolish the police and replace them with nothing... nothing but a universally armed populace.
Added: From "oooorgle" in comments comes this video. Watch it and see if you can figure out (without reading my comment response) why this wouldn't bother me, and why they wouldn't be what I am against.


Saturday, March 21, 2015

Scouts? Or something less?

Wow. Boy scouting has really become pathetic.

During my recent outing there happened to be a boy scout meeting going on at the same time.

They seemed like nice people when I returned a lost "be prepared" patch (Ouch! The irony) to them.

Later I watched from a distance as a group of them were shown how to carry a federal flag. And as they practiced what they were learning.

I saw nothing useful being taught, then or any time.

Then I asked a couple of scouts if they were being taught wilderness skills or anything. They said they weren't.

Well, one said they were taught "survival knots". Sigh.

So I asked, more specifically, if they were being taught firestarting for example. They said they weren't. They said they can't learn that until they earn a badge for it, nor can they carry a knife until they have a "knife badge".

I asked how they are supposed to learn something to earn a badge if they aren't being taught and aren't allowed to practice. They looked at me like lost puppies, shrugged, and said they didn't know.

Sorry, but that's just disgusting.

I went back the next day to offer to demonstrate some actual skills to the group, but they were already gone. I suspected they might be by the lack of noise. (I will say I was impressed at how little litter such a large group left behind. Very unusual.)

OK, so maybe the scouts I asked were misrepresenting the situation. Maybe most troops are being taught more skills. Maybe these were "too young" to be learning such things (no, they really weren't, but you and I both know in the year 2015 "childhood" is being stretched and prolonged beyond all reason, to the detriment of the kids). Maybe this example was not representative in some other way.

But if it is, scouting needs more competition.

I'd love to start a new kind of scouting: Browncoat Scouts.

Each group could choose who to allow in- freedom of association needs to be respected. Instead of "God & Country" I'd teach them that "right" is more important that "legal", and is often unrelated to what is presented as "moral" by religions. I'd teach them that loyalty isn't to be given automatically, but is earned. I'd teach them the importance of an honest deal resulting in a profit, and how there is no loser, but two winners, in such an interaction. I'd teach them that authority, including mine, is usually an empty illusion. There is a difference between a leader and a ruler, and almost all "authority" is nothing but rulers. And I'd teach them the importance of learning the proper way to handle weapons, fire, and other survival skills and tools. And, over all, the importance of never initiating force or theft.

I told my daughter she could be the first ever Browncoat Scout.
Update 5-19-2015: And it just gets more ridiculous all the time. link


Friday, March 20, 2015

Violated by those you look up to

Julie on Politics has another case of a gun owner in New Jersey being violated for doing nothing wrong. It's a recurring theme, committed by the same gaggle of goons in silly costumes.

However, in this case I have less sympathy because the guy wanted to be a cop. Yep. He wanted to join the evil gang which ended up violating him. I wonder if that taught him anything about which side he should be on.

If you own a gun, or have any sense, you should stay far, far away from New Jersey. If you go there understand it's like sticking your head in an alligator's mouth- but less enjoyable.

There is a petition you can sign- but as the guy was an aspiring cop, I won't be signing it. Unless I hear of him speaking out against cops and their Blue Line Gang- if he does so, I'll sign. If he still believes cops are the good guys, he's still on the wrong side.


Thursday, March 19, 2015

Kent's Vacation Memorabilia

I just got back from a bit of a vacation. Sometimes I am reminded how ill-suited I am to the modern world, even though I try to accommodate it.

The first day there, as I wandered through the brush, I found myself in need of a bit of string with which to tie up a bag, and unwilling to use the 550 paracord in my pocket. So I did the normal thing- I found some fibers and made my own cordage. Something crude and just long enough for my purpose.

As I wander I always pick up trash- which is what the cordage was for in the first place. I put trash in a bag I had stashed in a pouch, but the bag got too full to shove under my belt so I tied it shut and hung it from my belt. Most of what I found went into trash cans, but I always find some interesting stuff, too. This time I found some old Coors cans- probably buried in the sand a long time. Faded more on the side most exposed to the sun; dented. And filled with sand which I dumped out. I kept them.

Later, on another "hike", I used the cord to tie some firemaking tinder I had collected to the top of my walking stick. I'm in the habit of collecting tinder wherever I find it- maybe "habit" isn't a strong enough word. Obsession? I really don't need any more, but I am compelled to collect it anyway. I tried a sample with a magnifying glass and discovered it works extremely well. It burst into flame without me even having to blow on it.

Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to auction off a "Kent's Vacation Memorabilia Set". Sorry. No postcards or knick-knacks. No state spoons or pecan log rolls. Just stuff I made or picked up for free.

I am putting it on eBay- and here is the listing: "Kent's Vacation Memorabilia Set". The high bidder will get that specific piece of handmade (by my own grubby fingers) cordage (a bit over 25" long), the lump of tinder I tied to my walking stick (walking stick not included), one of the Coors cans, and a sprig of the grass fibers I used to make the cordage. If no one bids, I'll have no problem keeping the stuff (well, other than the can, which I'll toss).

Here are the accompanying pictures to show what I'm talking about:

These are the grass fibers hanging around that I used to make the cordage.
There was a lot of it around.

Here's the sample of the grass fibers. 

Here's the cordage I made. A bit over 25" of it.

Here's the tinder bundle.

Here is the cord tying the tinder to the walking stick.
This is the exact cord and tinder you'd get.

Here's the can I'll include. A bit of research indicates the can dates to 1967. 
(Look for #1020 on that site)*

I just thought this might be fun. I was told "That's stupid and no one will bid". Maybe. We shall see. UPDATE: (Looks like my detractor was right- no one will bid. Oh well. It was a thought.)
UPDATE 2: (Nope. Didn't sell, and very, very few views. Spectacularly unpopular. Hmmm.)

*I also have a can that seems to be from 1963 (#1019) and one from maybe 1986 (either #1023 or #1024)- again, according to that site. Of the 3, the one from 1963 is in the best shape and the one from 1986 in the worst. Still dented and worn. If interested in either of those, check them out under my listings on eBay.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Be good- don't work for government

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Just as there is no such thing as a "good cop", you can't be a good person while doing a government job. It's just not possible. Truly good people don't work for government.

But what about "public school" teachers? Surely I don't include them?

Yes, I do. And it pains me because of the number of government school (kinderprison) teachers in my family. They can (just like cops) be nice, but not good.

A kinderprison teacher's money comes by theft- often, or maybe always- from a yearly ransom on property. "Property tax" is one of the most outright evil forms of theft ever dreamed up by thieving perverts. Living on stolen goods isn't good.

Then, kinderprison teachers also indoctrinate their young prisoners into the religion of statism. Sometimes gently, but always.
"Truth comes from authority."
"You must follow the rules, no matter how ridiculous."
"You will obey the bell."
"Truancy must not be allowed!"

And, usually, the "students" are indoctrinated into believing that government is necessary, or even good. They are taught a warped version of history that exalts evil thugs and war.

Of course, even a private school teacher can do the same horrible things to the students. Privatization is no guarantee of decency.

If you are a teacher at a kinderprison- or a private school based on the Prussian indoctrination system- you should quit if you want to become a good person.


Petty control freaks

I try to get along with everyone- and usually do- even with most statists. But some statists try really hard to make that nearly impossible.

I say "statists", but in some cases I'm not quite sure whether it's statism, or just an enthusiasm to enforce rules.

I have been "camping" for the past few days. No internet (which is why no comments on the blog were responded to for a few days). The camp host where I stayed enthusiastically enforces rules the park management never bothered with. In fact, he bragged that he "educated" the manager about the rule which wasn't being enforced and of which the manager wasn't even aware. He even says he has had to inform many other park managers of this rule, because most of them aren't aware of it. Isn't he such a big man.

I'm sure I don't even need to mention it is a counterfeit rule.

This is a case of the government employee being less evil than the freelance control freak. "Watch how good I am- pat me on the head, Master."

This camp "host" (Benny Dennis, in case you'd like to know the control freak's name) descended on us with clipboard in hand to inform us we were in violation- almost before we'd had a chance to catch our breath after arrival. The extra fee to bring us into compliance would have cost us 50% more and would have obviously shortened the vacation- although we found a way around it (at added cost and inconvenience).

People who say "I only enforce the rules; I don't make them", and "apologize" for having no choice but to enforce the rules- rules which have never been enforced until he showed up and insisted on enforcing them- are worse than those idiots who make up the rules in the first place.

I could see if he were being forced to enforce the rules by a gun pointed at his head. But that obviously wasn't the case here. He is someone who goes out of his way to insist a counterfeit rule be enforced so that he can throw his weight around. A cancer on the human family tree.

Yet, as in all cases, he could become a good guy in one instant by stopping what he has been doing. By minding his own business and leaving people alone as long as they aren't attacking or stealing.

I mostly avoided him by staying off in the brush. It's better for my health.


Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Few things subject to outside control

Few things subject to outside control

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 13, 2015)

Life is like an ice cream parlor, except instead of 21 flavors, the choices are nearly infinite.

Or, they would be if others would stop demanding you choose only from the limited options they decided to allow you; ignoring all other possibilities.

You are told you may only choose between vanilla and chocolate. Of course, the reality is that it's closer to a choice between vanilla made by two different companies, rather than between flavors which actually differ in any substantive way. Whichever flavor wins the majority vote becomes exclusive for the next few years- if outvoted you can't have your preference at all. Not even in the privacy of your own home.

That's your option. Any other choice is off the table. You'll wait years before being offered a chance to enjoy your favorite again. Then, you might lose once more and be forced to forgo your preference even longer. Or become an outlaw.

How can anyone think this is normal?

Don't ignore the real variety. Your choice between two flavors- between Republicrat and Demolican- only matters because people have been fooled into believing it's OK to allow the winners to dictate things no one can have the right or authority to control.

There are extremely few things in your life legitimately subject to outside control. Even then, the only ethical type of outside control is self defense. If you attack or steal, your victim is right to use force to stop you. If you smoke something someone else doesn't approve of, no matter who he is, he has no right or authority to send government employees after you. If he chooses to do so anyway, he becomes the bad guy, as do those he sends to act on his behalf.

That's just one among countless examples I could list.

That he has a "majority" behind him makes no difference whatsoever. Doing wrong isn't made right through popularity, or "laws". Nor because "it has always been done this way".

Unbelievable as it may seem, it gets even worse. If your fondest hopes come to pass and Vanilla wins the next election, the coercion imposed by Chocolate will not go away. Instead Vanilla will add his own rules to those imposed by the Chocolate regime before him, which were added to hundreds of years of made-up rules; negating your choices, taking your property, and pushing you around as it suits the whim of those who impose the rules.

You probably defend this behavior because you have been schooled to see this as the way things are supposed to be. You have been trained to see this as normal. Break free.


Concealed carry and responsibility

Just because I like guns, and know that the more people who own and carry them the better it is for the good guys, doesn't mean I think everyone should necessarily have a gun at every moment.

For example, I don't think cops should carry guns- they are the only people I think should be legally disarmed (since I don't think "laws" should ever be applied to anyone who isn't explicitly a part of government).

I used to know a guy who would get really drunk at the bar and then endlessly tell me about the gun in his boot (while patting the boot), and how if "anything goes down" I didn't have to worry because he was ready. Not that I believe he could have hit the target in his condition.

He also used to brag about his "permit" to carry. He often showed me his "license" and acted as if it were a really big deal.

I have no idea whether he actually had a gun in his boot- he never flashed that. I guess he did that right.

I never saw him do anything dangerous with a gun. Even if I had, it's not the State's business. But, had he pulled the gun out during any "exciting event" I would have been as worried about him as anyone else.

The first rule of concealed carry is don't advertise. Don't people know what "concealed" means? Maybe he only talked to me about it, but I doubt it. Someone else might have used his talk against him.

Second, if you are drunk, you are quite possibly a bigger danger if you pull out your gun than whatever you think you would be protecting others from.

It all comes down to responsibility. You are responsible for what you do- good or bad. So weigh your actions carefully. Yes, I want you to be armed at all times. But if you are compromised, it might be best if you aren't. Either way, the State has no authority.


Monday, March 16, 2015

Don't try anarchy

Right. Anarchy is how I live almost all of my life. And so do you. You no more "try it" than you try circulating your blood through your veins.

You can't even avoid living anarchy if it scares you. It only scares you if you overthink it and realize what you are (and always have been) doing.

So, don't "try" anarchy. Just accept it.


Sunday, March 15, 2015

Education beats enforced ignorance every time

I'm actually going to pass along an anti-gun ad (even though I hate to give it page views). Well, perhaps you might consider it "gun safety" rather than anti-gun. That argument could be made, but I think it's on shaky ground. It feels anti-gun to me.

Anyway, here it is:

Yes, kids who are kept ignorant will play with anything they find. Now. once again, I suggest education is the key.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if the boys had been educated about what the "toys" were, and how to properly use them, they wouldn't have touched them with a ten-foot pole.

A locked-up gun is useless for defense. Of course, that's what the anti-liberty bigots want. It's their idea of "safety". Safety for whom?


Saturday, March 14, 2015

When should you hit a woman?

...anytime you need to hit anyone in self defense, that's when. To imagine that someone gets a pass for aggression due to the type of genitalia they have is inconsistent and hurts everyone- attacker and victim, alike.

You are never obligated to defend yourself with violence, but on the other hand, you are also never obligated to sit back and take it. Not from anyone, ever.

I have never bought into this "never hit a woman" nonsense. Yet, I have refrained from hitting a woman a couple of times it was justified. Simply because I knew "the law" wouldn't have been on my side due to a total lack of witnesses. I'm not proud of that fact. There is nothing noble about allowing yourself to be hit while doing nothing to defend yourself.

When my second marriage was getting really bad, my (newly psychotic) wife would occasionally slap me and dare me to do something about it. I did- I got away. But I would have been right to have punched her, and am somewhat ashamed that I didn't. You and I both know I would have been arrested for defending myself, since her aggression happened in the privacy of our home. It doesn't matter, though. As the aggressor she deserved to be defended against with whatever amount of violence it took to stop the attack.

Refusing to hit her could also be seen as a form of self defense- defense against insane "laws" and bigotry. Choosing one violation to avoid a potentially worse one.

So, no, I have never hit a woman, but I will never condemn someone who hits an aggressor of any sex. Sometimes it is simply the right thing to do. If that offends you, well, suck it up, Buttercup.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Circumcision by "law"

I'm sure you've seen the case in Florida where the woman is being ordered by the State to have her 4 year-old son circumcised like she had previously agreed to do.

First off, I will say that I support the mother's resistance. I consider circumcision to be genital mutilation- and when medically unnecessary, it is definitely an act of aggression. I consider the State's opinions to be the utterings of an idiot, to be ignored unless a gun is in your face right now, and to be resisted whenever necessary to do the right thing.

But I accidentally got into a Facebook "debate" with a couple of women whose opinions on this matter astounded me.

Here are the basics:

The contract is sacred and must be upheld- no matter what. 
It is better to do this to a baby since he won't  remember it, but since she didn't do it then, she must do it now, and it is her fault the kid is now being traumatized. 
The mom is wrong for informing (and scaring) him of what the dad and State want to do to him. 
The mom is a drama queen for not simply complying. 
It is hyperbole to call this "genital mutilation", and it can't be compared at all to female genital mutilation. 
The "origins" of the procedure matter more than the results.

I see these women as radical statists. Collectivists of the worst kind.

I don't care what contract you have signed. If an act is wrong, enforcing a contract that says you have to do it is wrong.

The baby may not remember the trauma, but it will affect his whole life and his quality of life- one way or the other. And this kid is no longer a baby and his wishes in the matter need to be considered. And, of course he is scared! People want to cut off a part of his body for no real reason other than it is "normal" to do so!

Sure, the dad claims the kid has a medical condition that can be solved by circumcision. You could solve a pimple on a breast with radical mastectomy, too, but that doesn't mean it's the only, or even the best, option. I'd be willing to bet there are less radical ways to fix the problem while leaving the kid intact.

This was one of those times I had a hard time being nice. I wanted to scream at these women for being brutal child abuse enablers.  I consider them pure evil of the sort that empowers the State and tramples liberty. What you do out of ignorance is one thing- what you continue to advocate after being educated is quite another.


Wednesday, March 11, 2015

If a thug lends a hand

If I were in serious trouble would I accept help from a known bad guy? You bet I would.

So what if I suspect (or know) that the person pulling me out of a burning car is a MS-13 thug? At that moment my need is such that I'm not going to complain no matter who offers a hand.

Or, if my daughter were kidnapped and the local mafia (if there were such a thing hereabouts) found her and brought her back to me, I wouldn't say "No, take her back to the kidnappers because I don't like what you do."

And it's the same if a cop helps.

No one can be a bad guy all the time- at least not in every act they perform. They'd never survive no matter what connections they had.

Accepting help isn't the same as endorsing or condoning the other things a person does. You can hate the fact that your rescuer is a hired hitman while still being grateful to him- individually- for helping you at that moment.

If you feel you can afford to slap away a helping hand in a moment of crisis, you are a better person than I.

Yeah, pretty much the same theme as "If a cop saves a life...", but still a little different.


Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Visitors center could be profitable

Visitors center could be profitable

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 6, 2015)

The Texico New Mexico Visitors Center's fate has generated a bit of talk- most of which seems to revolve around trying to convince government to spend confiscated money to re-open it, leaving it in the hands of the very group which fumbled it. Why hand it back to them?

Only the "sunk cost fallacy" sees wisdom in continuing to throw money down a hole when you can stop. The best way to stop, in this case, is to let someone else risk their own money.

I would love to see local individuals take it over and re-open it as a private effort filling the same niche it filled before. Maybe some business owners, or a local investor looking for a project, could get together and pool money to run it. It could be a profitable venture. "Make a profit? From a visitors center?" Instead of burning through money taken out of the economy by coercion, it could be self-sustaining; putting money back into the economy. If you object to people making a profit by providing a service, perhaps you would be happier in North Korea.

Let someone with a plan, and the means to get it running without government handouts, give it a try. Privately run, it would be a net gain, rather than a net drain.

Since the facilities and the land they sit on was bought with "tax" money, it already belongs to the people- as does everything government claims to own. "The people" is not some magical collective- it is every individual whose money has been taken through taxation to finance the facility. Some of those people would undoubtedly do a better job of running it; never again taking money from others against their will for the purpose.

A relative of mine even mentioned what a great RV park it would make, and I think that's a wonderful idea. Without much effort it could easily become the most scenic spot between Texico and Clovis- and it's convenient for all the traffic through the area, too.

Local businesses could pay to have their brochures provided for interested travelers. A variety of tourist trinkets and maps could be sold. A snack bar would be a great addition. It would provide a few jobs and could be a fascinating place to work- as long as the money coming in was all voluntary.

The only real obstacle would be opposition from those calling themselves "the state"- who believe they own it- and those who hate to see anything moved from the government sector to the productive sector. Their objections would be nothing but a case of "sour grapes".


Skinhead Bob's double standards

Sunday evening I was taking a walk with my daughter. As we were leaving our yard a local skinhead belonging to the Blue Line Gang drove past. He was talking on his cell phone and using his laptop as he drove. His hands were so busy I'm not sure how he was driving.

This is right next to a kinderprison which is posted with signs saying "the use of a wireless communication device is prohibited in school zone". It makes no exception for weekends or after hours, and makes no exceptions for Blue Line Gang thugs. But you and I both know some animals are more equal than others- even while being inferior in just about every way.

OK, so technically Skinhead Bob* wasn't using "a" wireless communication device, since I saw him using at least two, simultaneously. Perhaps that's his excuse.

And, no, I don't really care if the sick tax-junkie is using those devices- as long as he doesn't molest or rob others for doing the same.

What do you think the chances of that might be?

Probably the same as the chances of him letting other drivers "get away with" not quite stopping at the stop sign- exactly like he doesn't do. Which I see him enforce often (as far as I can tell, it's all he does). Double standards and those who live by them, sicken me.

*No, I don't really know the parasitical vermin's name. This one has only been infesting the town for a few months. The last "new cop" was out to make a name for himself and found himself out of a job before too long. How this one will choose to molest us remains to be seen.


Monday, March 09, 2015

A "Deaddog's switch"- a profitable idea?

You know I'm somewhat enthusiastic about preps. I try not to push the issue, since I don't think that helps- when it matters to you, you'll do it. I wish it mattered to everyone.

Over at Dirttime, Dude McLean has posted a good reminder I hope you'll take the time to read.

And, it gave me an idea.

He was talking about having dogs as an early warning for home invasions. But as you know, the most dangerous home invaders- members of the Blue Line Gang- often shoot the dogs first to prevent them from warning the gang's victims.

That is a problem with a solution- for someone who has the knowledge and drive to solve it- for a profit!

Electronic collars are available for all sorts of things now. What I'd like to see is one that triggers an alarm if the dog's heart stops beating. As soon as the badgethug pops the dog, floodlights come on all over the property and sirens sound, alerting everyone around to the danger.

Sure, there would need to be tweaks. You don't want the alarm going off if FluffyButt loses his collar. Maybe if the collar comes loose while the dog's heart is still beating, or if the battery is dying, you get a quieter alert so you can check it out.

Just an idea I hope some entrepreneur picks up and runs with. And gets wildly rich. I do think there'd be a market for it.


Sunday, March 08, 2015

Is history fiction?

(Previously posted to Patreon.)

I have never seen a "news" story, of which I have been personally aware of the background and first-hand details, that the media got right. Not even once out of maybe 10 or so instances. And I've heard the same from everyone I've ever discussed this fact with.

So, if you pay attention to the "news" you are possibly worse off than a person who you would consider completely unaware of current events. You are almost surely being misinformed- which I consider worse than uninformed.

I wonder how this applies to "history".

The way I see it, "history" is nothing more or less than fossilized "news". And I suspect it is just as misleading as the "news" reports of what supposedly happened today- if not more. Since there is no way to really correct the story in most cases.

So, learning from history probably is about as meaningful as learning from watching "The Hunger Games" or "Star Wars"- things you acknowledge to be fiction.

In a way that's upsetting, especially if you like history, but maybe you can still enjoy it if you just remember you are probably being lied to. The "history" you know probably wouldn't look familiar to those who lived through it.


Garry Reed's "Selected Salvos 2".

I recently finished reading Garry Reed's latest little collection, "Selected Salvos 2 from the Loose Cannon Libertarian".

It was a lot of fun!

It is also a reminder of how little the State and all the associated problems have changed in the decade-plus since most of these essays were written. Most could have been written today, rather than in the dawning years of the 2000s. Sure, the names of some of the individual thugs have changed, but the stories are so familiar.

I like his "Fun & Freedom" approach, and loved the sense of humor he exhibits in exposing these statist imbeciles and their ridiculous behavior. Instead of letting them get him down, he points and laughs.

It is a pretty short book, but was just what I needed while sitting in doctors' waiting rooms and such, recently. I can recommend the book without reservation.

Different ways to get the book are listed below the cover.

(And, for a video about the book- YouTube: http://youtu.be/MYFWQlTIYPs)


Read it and absorb it

MamaLiberty has written a really great one.

She called it "Do You Smile Every Day?", but seriously, it is about so much more than that. Please go read it and think about how it applies to your life right now.


"Private, for-profit" man cages

"Private, for-profit" prisons are just as bad as their State-run twins. First of all, they are not "private" since they depend utterly on the criminal-creating State for their existence and profits.

Anything run by the State is bad, because it is completely dependent upon theft and aggression. That needs to be said right up front.

If your "profit" relies on actions of the State, it is just as bad.

When the "private" effort is just as evil as the State effort, it's a good sign what you are doing simply shouldn't be done.

That's not saying there couldn't be any possibility of a prison in a free society- a man cage which never takes any operating funds from anyone against their will, never sinks to enforcing any counterfeit "rules", and is subject to restitution when it injures an innocent person or goes "too far" in punishing the guilty. I would still never support such a place, but you might.

But that isn't what "private, for-profit" prisons are.

Plus they use the force of the State to make sure they have lots of prisoners. They are always mounting about the biggest lobbying efforts against ending the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, just for one example of their evil.

They are scummy institutions and need to die.


Saturday, March 07, 2015

Finally- I find an excuse for government

I'm always saying there's no excuse for government.

I have been wrong.

There is an excuse: insanity.

Insanity is the only thing that can excuse a person for believing the statist propaganda and rejecting reality. So, when someone advocates government or The State, just think of it as pleading insanity and deal with them appropriately.


Thursday, March 05, 2015

Good ISIS?

I admit, I despise ISIS on a couple of different levels. They are religious, and they are a State. They also, because they are a State, use aggression to coerce others. But I am willing to look beyond my prejudices and consider the question more deeply:

Are any ISIS members good people?

I will admit that as long as a member of ISIS isn't currently engaged in aggression he doesn't deserve to be killed at that moment. But "good"?

By choosing to join ISIS one is declaring his support for the evil done in the name of ISIS by other members. By choosing to remain in ISIS he makes the same choice every morning he awakes and doesn't immediately abandon the group.

To me, this removes any concern I might have if he is killed while a member of ISIS- even if he isn't currently committing aggression. While I wouldn't kill him myself unless I witness him committing (or credibly threatening) aggression, I can't be sorry he is dead. Even though his enemy is usually also my enemy.

I'm sure a lot of people in the region where ISIS is active believe they are the good guys; doing what is necessary- the "hard things"- for the "common good". Public support doesn't make them right or good. Popularity can't make "right" any more than "might" can.

You can't remain a good person after joining ISIS, even if your goal was to get in to change ISIS from the inside. Even if you somehow manage to remain innocent, your fellow members will get rid of you one way or another. Especially if they see you having any effect on others in the group. ISIS's very nature means as soon as you join you become part of the problem. You are choosing to self-identify with those whose entire "job" is to commit evil acts, blaming some "superior force" for those acts, rather than accepting personal responsibility.

So, no, there can be no "good" ISIS members. It goes against all logic, rationality, and ethics to claim otherwise.

Now, replace "ISIS" with "the police" in all the above and notice it is still 100% true and accurate.


Wednesday, March 04, 2015

The logic behind statism

Because poison exists in the world, we must add it to our soup, otherwise we might be poisoned by accident.

This is the same reasoning that says because some people are evil, we must have a government/State to protect us from those evil people.

Shooting yourself because someone might shoot you isn't usually the smartest course of action.


Tuesday, March 03, 2015

‘Radical’ not bad if rooted in good

‘Radical’ not bad if rooted in good

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 30, 2015)

Being "radical" has gotten a bad name due to horrible acts committed by evil radicals. The fault doesn't lie in being radical; it comes from being radical about bad things, or beliefs, which convince people it's acceptable to use aggression, coercion, and theft to advance their cause.

"Radical" is from the Latin word radix, meaning "root". Most of the definitions of the word I have seen make the point that radicals "go down to the root"- to the very foundation of their beliefs. Another term for radical is "fundamentalist".

I think there's another facet to the word.

Being "radical" also means you are rooted; grounded. You are not tossed around by changing winds. Unlike a tumbleweed broken free of its roots, you stand firm as the gusts blow others off their feet.

In other words to be "radical" merely indicates you have principles. Those principles can be either good or bad. Most people seem to shy away from having principles of any kind. Too limiting, I suppose.

When your principles don't permit you to quietly go along with the prevailing culture- to stand firm, doing right when everyone around you believes you are wrong- it can be difficult.

Being a radical for good means your principles don't violate the individual Rightful Liberty or private property of anyone else, nor will you violate others in pursuit of those principles.

Flawed principles which stray from this must be quite tempting to many radicals, since going astray seems so common.

Radical is also relative.

A couple hundred years ago, anyone advocating to allow government to read all communications, to enforce "laws" regulating travel, to make almost every human activity either mandatory, forbidden, or subject to permits- in other words just about anything the various federal, state, and local governments do today- would have been the radical. This is now mainstream and anyone who objects or resists is seen as the radical.

Those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human activity- the statists- have always been the majority. They are dangerous radicals. Statists attempt to control others from every direction, and some of them like to use a particular set of religious radicals, among other hobgoblins, as justification for violating everyone else.

Bad radicals are most dangerous when they get political power and use it the way all statists do: to impose their beliefs, with force of law, on those who don't share their beliefs. Bad radical versus bad radical, with you and me caught in the middle.

Have principles. Be a radical. Make certain your roots are in the right place, and don't ever forget that the end never justifies the means.


Liberty, literally

I got lectured recently (and not for the first time) by someone who believes the word "liberty" means the opposite of what I mean when I use the word- the negative opposite of what the word should mean.

His definition is the one which means "permission from authority". Such as the military meaning of the word "liberty".

This tendency for enemies of liberty, rights, anarchy and all the positive things in life to assign an opposite, negative meaning to a good word is just like the recent redefinition of the word "literally" to also  mean the opposite of "literally"- "figuratively".

Which is why I am pretty careful to constantly harp on what I mean when I use a word. I think it makes misunderstandings less likely, but some people want to misunderstand and argue. There's no stopping them if that's what they want, but they sure look silly.

Of course, this is the same person who believes in his magical incantations, so what do I expect?


Monday, March 02, 2015

The Cult of Punishment

A lot of people- even those self-identifying as "mostly libertarian"- are big fans of punishment.

They may prefer private punishment over State, "tax"-funded punishment, but just as rape isn't "better" because you aren't wearing a cop uniform when you commit it, punishment doesn't magically become alright just because you don't call yourself The State.

Many people seem to forget that government isn't what makes aggression wrong; aggression is what makes government wrong. Along with theft.

With most violations, punishment actually helps no one. Restitution can make things right- or as right as humanly possible- and the guilty may feel "punished", but with restitution, there is a quantifiable goal and when  the debt is paid, it is over. No so with prison, which costs the victim even more ("tax" money to house and feed the aggressor/thief), therefore victimizing the victim again, as well as everyone else who has better uses for their money than maintaining a human farm.

Punishment feeds a psychological desire to see a person who made someone else suffer, also suffer. As much or more than his victim. As with many psychological desires, this one is not healthy, while still being understandable. I think it is somewhat immature (and I have fallen into the same trap, so any fingers pointed at anyone else are also pointed back at myself). Basically, punishment only makes the fans of punishment feel better.

But, many believe punishment is especially "necessary" in order to either force an aggressor to pay back a debt which can't be paid back, or to ensure a reduction in aggression into the future. After all, there can be no restitution for some things, and "what if" the guilty person attacks again?

Does this sort of punishment actually accomplish what its proponents claim?

Does punishment pay the debt for a rape or murder? If something is truly paid for, then the violation ceases to be. If so, then there is no more reason to feel like a victim, or damaged, once punishment has been exacted and the violation is "paid". Things are either back to how they were before the violation took place, or the victim is satisfied with the outcome. I doubt any victim of rape or murder would make that claim, even if the aggressor were tortured to death, slowly, over the course of months. So punishment fails spectacularly in this instance.

Punishment can never "pay" for a rape or murder.

What about ensuring a reduction in the violations into the future?

Apparently, those who are prone to commit aggression don't worry much about consequences. Or, at least those who don't try to veil their acts with the false legitimacy of government don't worry much about consequences. For one thing, they all seem to believe they'll never be caught; that only happens to "the other guy" who isn't as clever.

The one thing which does seem to alter their behavior is the realization that the pool of potential targets has a high percentage of armed people in it. This is an immediate consequence they can actually visualize and adjust their behavior to deal with. Such as, seeking out places which criminalize self defense and the effective tools with which to carry it out.

So, I am very dubious about the claim that harsh punishment carried out on one aggressor will change the behavior of others in a way that will reduce aggression in the long run. Your best bet is to be prepared to defend yourself and those around you from bad guys.

How about the guy you've caught in the act? (And who somehow survived being caught.)

Sure, if you "execute" a murderer, he won't murder again. Most probably wouldn't have anyway, but let's pretend they would have. Unless they went on to commit 2 or more murders you haven't gained anything, since their death- at a time when they were not currently engaged in aggression (otherwise it isn't an "execution". it is self defense) and were under control (because unless they are under your total control how could you perform your death healing ritual on them?) is one more death than existed before you committed the act. Sure, you could say that his potential future victims were innocent, and he is a murderer, so his death doesn't count for as much. But, again, if he is not currently committing aggression or theft at the time you kill him, he is- at that moment- innocent of anything worthy of death.

Most murders are a "one-off" event. No, that doesn't help the victim, but it also makes it silly to kill the murderer to prevent more murders in the future. The exception is the person who goes on a murder spree- and they are much less likely to survive long enough for punishment to be an issue, unless the pool of targets has been "legally" primed (disarmed) for their convenience.

If you execute someone who wasn't caught in the act, your chance of murdering an innocent person is too great for me to support in any way. And if you use "tax" money to carry out any form of punishment, you are heaping evil on top of evil.

The ONLY legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Period. You can sort out any details beyond that later.

I don't "believe in" imprisonment, either, but at least this act is subject to restitution of sorts if it is discovered you are accusing the wrong person. A death penalty isn't.

If a person deserves (by your account) to be in a cage, he probably deserves to be killed by his next target. Or by a witness to his next act of theft or aggression. Yes, some will escape to violate again. Nothing will ever prevent that- not even if we are all kept in cages with round-the-clock surveillance. The dangers associated with "too much liberty" are preferable to those associated with too little. If you disagree, you can establish your own parallel "system"- just leave me out of it.

If you believe in punishment, and actually act on that belief, I may judge you to be the bad guy. If you still believe you are right, then my opinion shouldn't matter. Do what you are going to do with a clear conscience. If you find your conscience nagging you, though, perhaps you should examine your premises a little more deeply.

I truly believe a desire to see punishment carried out hurts you as much- or worse- than those you believe you are using it against. I have seen it over and over again. Choose to believe me or not.


Sunday, March 01, 2015

It's that Old White Magic again

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I have said several times that I am not a believer in magical incantations. Those who think they have discovered the obscure things to say to government employees, to get those parasites to slink away in shame, are (I believe) sincere, but deluded.

I shared the link to my recent post, Liberty- I don't, on Facebook and got slammed by one of "those guys". Mostly I pity him. But I really didn't appreciate his attitude.

Don't get me wrong- I think it would be great if there were words you could recite to send govthugs scurrying never to molest you again. From what I've seen, the attempt doesn't usually work too well for those who depend on it.

I really don't know what to say to people who believe this- especially those who get hysterical because I don't buy what they are selling. I wish them luck in pursuing their beliefs, and if it ever starts working, I may change my mind. Until then...


Liberty- I don't!*

I don't want to tax anyone.
I don't want to criminalize anything.
I don't support any State or government.
I am not "for" any politician.
I don't want anyone punished- especially not by "law".
I give no weight to permits, licenses, papers, or whatever statists believe legitimize things.
I don't believe in the Cult of The State in any way, shape, or form, nor for any reason.

And I have a difficult time understanding those who do.

*A play on "Freedom- I won't" from "And Then There Were None".