I've been thinking a lot about water problems and droughts. And not just as it pertains to California.
In wilderness survival you learn that even in nice conditions, a lack of drinkable water is a serious problem. In that case it is the first thing likely to kill you. In bad conditions it can be even more critical, depending on the circumstances- even though something else might kill you first.
People living in arid regions made a choice that may turn out to be bad. Especially those who kept moving into a dry area after the amount of water available was not enough to support anyone new.
I think that without "government" water projects, the distribution of people and water would be a more reasonable match. It will self-correct even with the artificial "help".
If an area runs out of water, the people and businesses will leave if an affordable and sustainable solution isn't found.
"Government" shouldn't bail out the region (with coercion or stolen property)- and I speak as a person living in such an area.
.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
I'd rather be wild
Jungle fowl are in danger from predators and forced to find their own food, Poor things!
So the solution is to selectively breed the wild out of them, turning them into chickens, then cage them in boxes to keep them safely producing eggs and meat.
When the same thing is done to humans it is called "government" and is believed to be "civilized".
How do you like your box?
.
So the solution is to selectively breed the wild out of them, turning them into chickens, then cage them in boxes to keep them safely producing eggs and meat.
When the same thing is done to humans it is called "government" and is believed to be "civilized".
How do you like your box?
 |
| Jungle fowl hen- in danger from predators |
 |
| Jungle fowl rooster- worried where his next meal will come from |
 |
| Safe hens under government protection |
.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Government actions not surprising
Government actions not surprising
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 27, 2015)
Are you shocked when the “most transparent administration in history” turns out to be the most blatantly secretive, passing new laws to hide behind while going after whistleblowers with religious zeal?
How about when a president who talks a good freedom game enthusiastically signs the anti-American “Patriot Act?
Does it catch you off-guard when a politician backpedals-- that's another way to say he lied-- on campaign promises?
Are you surprised when the new "law" you supported turns out to have the opposite effect you believed it was going to have?
How do you react when a law you support is turned around and used against you in ways you never expected?
Are you disappointed when politicians are caught being corrupt?
Are you a slow learner, or just in denial?
You shouldn't be surprised, because the system is working the only way it can. It's like being surprised gravity caused the plate you dropped to fall to the ground and shatter. It's how it works-- the only possible way it can work.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that's not the whole story. Power also attracts those who are already corrupt like a cat-hating allergic person attracts shedding cats.
You have allowed a system to be set up, and to continue to exist, which carefully selects for the very worst among us to take the reins and act according to their nature, to the detriment of us all. And then you are surprised by the inevitable.
How do you really expect governing to turn out?
Some people blame Americans for not keeping government under control, saying if only "we" had enforced the Constitution "we" wouldn't be in this mess today. Obviously, many people like to blame the victim; it takes the pressure off themselves, since it is too late to effectively enforce the Constitution now.
The government has now grown too large and too powerful, and there is too much inertia. Most would balk at immediately eliminating the 99% of the federal government which is illegal under the Constitution. (I could be wrong about that percentage- it's probably higher.)
Exactly how you and I, or our great-grandparents, were supposed to work within the system to enforce the Constitution against politicians and judges who care nothing about it, and benefited by ignoring its constraints, is never adequately explained by those who make this claim. They just don't want to admit things are working exactly as they were designed to work. They delude themselves while trying to delude you.
As I listen to people complain, the same thought keeps running through my head: It's government. What else would you expect to happen?
.
Does it catch you off-guard when a politician backpedals-- that's another way to say he lied-- on campaign promises?
Are you surprised when the new "law" you supported turns out to have the opposite effect you believed it was going to have?
How do you react when a law you support is turned around and used against you in ways you never expected?
Are you disappointed when politicians are caught being corrupt?
Are you a slow learner, or just in denial?
You shouldn't be surprised, because the system is working the only way it can. It's like being surprised gravity caused the plate you dropped to fall to the ground and shatter. It's how it works-- the only possible way it can work.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that's not the whole story. Power also attracts those who are already corrupt like a cat-hating allergic person attracts shedding cats.
You have allowed a system to be set up, and to continue to exist, which carefully selects for the very worst among us to take the reins and act according to their nature, to the detriment of us all. And then you are surprised by the inevitable.
How do you really expect governing to turn out?
Some people blame Americans for not keeping government under control, saying if only "we" had enforced the Constitution "we" wouldn't be in this mess today. Obviously, many people like to blame the victim; it takes the pressure off themselves, since it is too late to effectively enforce the Constitution now.
The government has now grown too large and too powerful, and there is too much inertia. Most would balk at immediately eliminating the 99% of the federal government which is illegal under the Constitution. (I could be wrong about that percentage- it's probably higher.)
Exactly how you and I, or our great-grandparents, were supposed to work within the system to enforce the Constitution against politicians and judges who care nothing about it, and benefited by ignoring its constraints, is never adequately explained by those who make this claim. They just don't want to admit things are working exactly as they were designed to work. They delude themselves while trying to delude you.
As I listen to people complain, the same thought keeps running through my head: It's government. What else would you expect to happen?
.
Anarchy- almost too mainstream
One sad thing about being an anarchist is that the opportunities to do something really radical and different are so few.
Because, belief in "government" or not, everyone lives their personal lives in a state of anarchy the vast majority of the time. If they didn't, they'd quickly end up dead.
So, people generally don't molest others. They hold the door open for each other. They help out those in need when they can. They try to not crash their car into other cars or pedestrians. They don't rob people. They don't go around trying to force everyone around them to obey their every whim.
In other words, anarchy is so mainstream it's almost boring. The best you can do is point this out to statists and watch them sputter and fume, try to deny it, or claim "that's not anarchy!"
I guess the only really radical thing left to anarchists is to not make exceptions for those who act like jerks as a part of their "job".
.
Because, belief in "government" or not, everyone lives their personal lives in a state of anarchy the vast majority of the time. If they didn't, they'd quickly end up dead.
So, people generally don't molest others. They hold the door open for each other. They help out those in need when they can. They try to not crash their car into other cars or pedestrians. They don't rob people. They don't go around trying to force everyone around them to obey their every whim.
In other words, anarchy is so mainstream it's almost boring. The best you can do is point this out to statists and watch them sputter and fume, try to deny it, or claim "that's not anarchy!"
I guess the only really radical thing left to anarchists is to not make exceptions for those who act like jerks as a part of their "job".
.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Renovations complete at KentForLiberty.com
For the past several days I have been re-writing all the pages at KentForLiberty.com. I was a bigger task that I expected, and I am glad it is done.
A lot of the pages were badly outdated. My views have changed. I used to be much more a "constitutionalist" than I am now- although that was years ago. I have come closer to the roots of many things, rather than worrying with the leaves and branches so much. It was time to reflect that growth. (One page that I don't edit is "My Views", since that is an archive. Well, I don't edit anything but the introduction to the page, anyway.)
As always, I found and corrected more typos and misspellings.
I also decided to mirror KentForLiberty in pages on this blog. You can find these new pages under the blog header. I did that for a couple of reasons: I wanted a backup, just in case something happened to the website- such as me not continuing to pay for it, or it getting shut down for some other reason. I also have had technical glitches, while I was in the midst of editing, which have erased pages before. I wanted a faster way of fixing that problem.
I also thought it would be good to have it all in one place, here, so that if anyone is looking around, it would be easy to find.
It was a lot of work- I hope you like the results.
.
A lot of the pages were badly outdated. My views have changed. I used to be much more a "constitutionalist" than I am now- although that was years ago. I have come closer to the roots of many things, rather than worrying with the leaves and branches so much. It was time to reflect that growth. (One page that I don't edit is "My Views", since that is an archive. Well, I don't edit anything but the introduction to the page, anyway.)
As always, I found and corrected more typos and misspellings.
I also decided to mirror KentForLiberty in pages on this blog. You can find these new pages under the blog header. I did that for a couple of reasons: I wanted a backup, just in case something happened to the website- such as me not continuing to pay for it, or it getting shut down for some other reason. I also have had technical glitches, while I was in the midst of editing, which have erased pages before. I wanted a faster way of fixing that problem.
I also thought it would be good to have it all in one place, here, so that if anyone is looking around, it would be easy to find.
It was a lot of work- I hope you like the results.
.
Belief in "government" makes you weak
Belief in "government" is a crutch for some people. Leaning on it atrophies their muscles and is a self-destructive cycle of decay.
They have gotten dependent on leaning on it and now believe that they can't stand on their own two feet. But they can- if they'll just try. It might be difficult at first, and they may falter and stumble, but the alternative is a steady decline.
When a problem crops up, the first reaction of many seems to be to reach out to "government" for assistance.
Do you really wish to sell yourself and your family into slavery that cheaply? Do you want to sell your future and the future of your children? You are worth more than that.
Don't let the belief in "government" blind you to your own abilities and your real value.
You are not crippled; the State-worshipers are.
You can stand on your own if only you will drop the crutch that belief in "government" has hypnotized you into believing you need.
Drop it and stand on your own feet. Then take a step forward, away from the negative goons of the State. While you are at it, tell those goons to take a hike.
.
They have gotten dependent on leaning on it and now believe that they can't stand on their own two feet. But they can- if they'll just try. It might be difficult at first, and they may falter and stumble, but the alternative is a steady decline.
When a problem crops up, the first reaction of many seems to be to reach out to "government" for assistance.
Do you really wish to sell yourself and your family into slavery that cheaply? Do you want to sell your future and the future of your children? You are worth more than that.
Don't let the belief in "government" blind you to your own abilities and your real value.
You are not crippled; the State-worshipers are.
You can stand on your own if only you will drop the crutch that belief in "government" has hypnotized you into believing you need.
Drop it and stand on your own feet. Then take a step forward, away from the negative goons of the State. While you are at it, tell those goons to take a hike.
.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Reluctant bleg
Other than a recent request for some money for something my daughter wanted (which was met- thank you!), I haven't annoyed my readers with a request for money in a while. I have been managing okay.
Well, now things have changed a little and I have to ask.
A while back- in January, actually- I helped someone else out financially. At the time it wasn't going to be a problem. It still wouldn't be, except ... now I need the money I used to help them out and they aren't yet in a position to pay me back. (And if they never can, I'll not make an issue of it.)
The crisis is due to the other person in the household not getting paid for a week of vacation time from last month. Not yet. The money is supposedly still coming through the bureaucratic pipeline at their job, but I'm having my doubts. It won't get here in time to prevent some bad problems, either way. And I don't have enough to meet the shortfall.
If you are a subscriber, please don't respond with a donation- you already do enough. If you don't want to help, or if you can't help, then please don't. If you don't think I provide any value in return for the money, then obviously I am not asking you to donate. I only want voluntary trades of value for value.
If you can, and want to, the "donate" button is over there to the right.
.
Well, now things have changed a little and I have to ask.
A while back- in January, actually- I helped someone else out financially. At the time it wasn't going to be a problem. It still wouldn't be, except ... now I need the money I used to help them out and they aren't yet in a position to pay me back. (And if they never can, I'll not make an issue of it.)
The crisis is due to the other person in the household not getting paid for a week of vacation time from last month. Not yet. The money is supposedly still coming through the bureaucratic pipeline at their job, but I'm having my doubts. It won't get here in time to prevent some bad problems, either way. And I don't have enough to meet the shortfall.
If you are a subscriber, please don't respond with a donation- you already do enough. If you don't want to help, or if you can't help, then please don't. If you don't think I provide any value in return for the money, then obviously I am not asking you to donate. I only want voluntary trades of value for value.
If you can, and want to, the "donate" button is over there to the right.
.
Ejikashun iz M-por-tint
Government school is the worst thing to ever happen to education.
It cheapened it, and not in a good way.
It also made it feel like punishment to the inmates referred to as "students". It encourages a lot of them to stay as far as possible away from anything which could be considered educational. And, not just during their "school years", but throughout life. That is tragic! It's why v*ting and "government" is still as popular as it is among those unable to truly think.
It teaches "authority" instead of independence. It dumbs down rather than lifts up.
It teaches kids it's OK to steal as long as you use what you stole for something "important"- and some kids get the message loud and clear.
And, rather than educating, it indoctrinates.
Nothing could be worse as far as education goes. In fact, doing nothing would be an improvement.
.
It cheapened it, and not in a good way.
It also made it feel like punishment to the inmates referred to as "students". It encourages a lot of them to stay as far as possible away from anything which could be considered educational. And, not just during their "school years", but throughout life. That is tragic! It's why v*ting and "government" is still as popular as it is among those unable to truly think.
It teaches "authority" instead of independence. It dumbs down rather than lifts up.
It teaches kids it's OK to steal as long as you use what you stole for something "important"- and some kids get the message loud and clear.
And, rather than educating, it indoctrinates.
Nothing could be worse as far as education goes. In fact, doing nothing would be an improvement.
.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Stupid questions
Yes, they do exist:
The two questions, and the sentiments they echo, are equally stupid. Both are based on superstition.
.
"Without astrology how can we know what will happen today?"
"Without government how will we be safe from dangers?"
The two questions, and the sentiments they echo, are equally stupid. Both are based on superstition.
.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
It's NOT "OK" to support cops
A while back, in a Facebook thread, a cop supporter (I'll refrain from using the more descriptive term) said she had discovered, due to that thread, that people have differences of opinions about cops, and that's OK.
But not all opinions are equally valid.
Supporting cops (or being a cop), and saying that's a valid choice, is identical to saying that rape is a perfectly valid way to have sex, and supporting rapists is just peachy.
No, it isn't.
Aggression is the disqualifying feature of both acts.
.
But not all opinions are equally valid.
Supporting cops (or being a cop), and saying that's a valid choice, is identical to saying that rape is a perfectly valid way to have sex, and supporting rapists is just peachy.
No, it isn't.
Aggression is the disqualifying feature of both acts.
.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Facebook experiments
Recently, I have been using Facebook to test out ideas and sound bites. I mean, more so than in the past.
Some of those (like today's earlier blog post) end up being blogged here. Others don't.
If you'd like to get in on the fun, feel free to "friend" me- or "follow" me, if the available spots in my friend list get taken up before you get there.
I find it very educational to discover what gets the townfolk riled.
.
Some of those (like today's earlier blog post) end up being blogged here. Others don't.
If you'd like to get in on the fun, feel free to "friend" me- or "follow" me, if the available spots in my friend list get taken up before you get there.
I find it very educational to discover what gets the townfolk riled.
.
"Trigger warning"?
If you require "trigger warnings"- about ANYTHING- you have failed as a human.
Sorry if you believe that statement should have come with a "trigger warning". Wait... no, I'm not.
I'm not saying that bad things haven't happened to you in the past. I'm not saying that being reminded of those bad things won't hurt.
What I am saying is that no one is obligated to tip-toe around your delicate feelings and censor themselves to keep you from getting upset. Doing so doesn't help you; it shelters you and allows you to remain broken- and to only get worse over time.
Anyone posting a trigger warning for your "benefit" is slapping you in the face and saying you can't handle being a human. It's an insult to you.
You should be grateful that people treat you as a fully-functional human rather than as a delicate cracked egg shell.
.
Sorry if you believe that statement should have come with a "trigger warning". Wait... no, I'm not.
I'm not saying that bad things haven't happened to you in the past. I'm not saying that being reminded of those bad things won't hurt.
What I am saying is that no one is obligated to tip-toe around your delicate feelings and censor themselves to keep you from getting upset. Doing so doesn't help you; it shelters you and allows you to remain broken- and to only get worse over time.
Anyone posting a trigger warning for your "benefit" is slapping you in the face and saying you can't handle being a human. It's an insult to you.
You should be grateful that people treat you as a fully-functional human rather than as a delicate cracked egg shell.
.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Being prepared is common sense
Being prepared is common sense
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 20, 2015)
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 20, 2015)
The water shut off in Portales last week should have awakened a few people. From previous experience, I doubt it did.
For years I have advocated preparing for possible problems. No, I'm not a "doomsday prepper" waiting for a magnetic pole shift, the collapse of civilization, or a solar flare burning out the power grid. And I don't believe in zombies. I simply believe in staying ready for anything which could disrupt normal 21st Century life- things like having the water shut off.
No one should have been scrambling to find water; everyone should have already stocked at least a few days' supply of water around the house or business. This is a dry region, after all. Yet, how many have done so? How many realized their mistake and moved to correct it after this water crisis?
Having the water shut off city-wide for a day or so is nothing compared to many things which could happen.
Being prepared isn't paranoia- it's common sense. Our grandparents knew it. Any preparation is better than none.
Yet suggestions to be prepared are usually countered with excuses and denial.
"I don't need to stock up on anything- I can just walk to the store."
"I live in a good neighborhood."
"I can't afford to buy anything extra to put aside."
"That will never happen here- not to me."
Even after unexpected problems crop up, the response is "I survived okay."
Yes, this time. What if it had been worse, had lasted longer, or had been more widespread? What about next time?
Survival isn't the only consideration. Comfort is another.
It doesn't take "the end of the world as we know it" to make "preps" handy. Many times I have drawn upon my preparations to make minor inconveniences less difficult. In fact, I've had fun during minor emergencies while other people ran around in a confused panic. I am usually the person my friends come to when they find themselves caught unprepared for any small difficulty- and I normally have something which can help. But I can't help everyone other than by telling them they need to take responsibility for their own lives.
You can't count on others- those who saw the wisdom in making preparations- coming to your aid. They have to look out for themselves and their family first. It's not selfishness; it is responsibility. You and your family are your responsibility. Don't shirk. Look at the problems most likely to happen where you live, and find out what you would need most if they do occur. Think of simple, general things you might do. Stop looking for excuses and just start small today.
For years I have advocated preparing for possible problems. No, I'm not a "doomsday prepper" waiting for a magnetic pole shift, the collapse of civilization, or a solar flare burning out the power grid. And I don't believe in zombies. I simply believe in staying ready for anything which could disrupt normal 21st Century life- things like having the water shut off.
No one should have been scrambling to find water; everyone should have already stocked at least a few days' supply of water around the house or business. This is a dry region, after all. Yet, how many have done so? How many realized their mistake and moved to correct it after this water crisis?
Having the water shut off city-wide for a day or so is nothing compared to many things which could happen.
Being prepared isn't paranoia- it's common sense. Our grandparents knew it. Any preparation is better than none.
Yet suggestions to be prepared are usually countered with excuses and denial.
"I don't need to stock up on anything- I can just walk to the store."
"I live in a good neighborhood."
"I can't afford to buy anything extra to put aside."
"That will never happen here- not to me."
Even after unexpected problems crop up, the response is "I survived okay."
Yes, this time. What if it had been worse, had lasted longer, or had been more widespread? What about next time?
Survival isn't the only consideration. Comfort is another.
It doesn't take "the end of the world as we know it" to make "preps" handy. Many times I have drawn upon my preparations to make minor inconveniences less difficult. In fact, I've had fun during minor emergencies while other people ran around in a confused panic. I am usually the person my friends come to when they find themselves caught unprepared for any small difficulty- and I normally have something which can help. But I can't help everyone other than by telling them they need to take responsibility for their own lives.
You can't count on others- those who saw the wisdom in making preparations- coming to your aid. They have to look out for themselves and their family first. It's not selfishness; it is responsibility. You and your family are your responsibility. Don't shirk. Look at the problems most likely to happen where you live, and find out what you would need most if they do occur. Think of simple, general things you might do. Stop looking for excuses and just start small today.
.
"Compromising Good with Evil"- and failing, utterly
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I would still rather be right- be accepting of reality- than be comfortable. I'd rather be right than be libertarian.
If reality doesn't support liberty, then I want to be aware of it and accept it and figure out what the reality is.
I don't want cognitive dissonance or compartmentalization to get in the way. Fantasies about how things are might be comforting to some people, but I don't want to coddle those fantasies.
But, the deeper I dig, the less sense statism makes to me. The more "arguments" I hear in support of "governments", "laws", "States", and initiating force and theft, the more insane they sound. The inconsistencies are simply too glaring to ignore.
But, trying to explore the possibilities to discover reality is why I read things like this: Compromising Good with Evil
Right off the bat he gets something completely wrong, which throws off the entire rest of his screed- he says libertarians think that "There simply can be no middle ground between the two fundamental philosophical opposites of freedom and slavery. Either we are a free society or a slave society, but we can't be both."
While that is a true statement, he goes on to say "This all libertarians agree upon, or they're not libertarians." So, this is the defining principle of libertarianism?
Ummm... wrong. Libertarians know that initiating force and violating private property are wrong. That's what makes them libertarians. The other things logically stem from that, but are not the foundation.
And, he goes downhill from there, just like every single criticism of Abolitionism/voluntaryism/anarchism/libertarianism I have ever encountered does- simply because they utterly fail to understand what they are trying to debunk. They argue from ignorance.
His entire article is based upon an appeal to authority- in this case, Aristotle and his "Golden Mean". The "Golden Mean" works for some things, like Goldilocks' "Not too cold or too hot- but just right". It doesn't work at all where Liberty is concerned. That's because Liberty is self-limiting. Your Liberty can't violate anyone else, or it ceases to be Liberty. And "government" always violates Liberty.
He claims, using the idea of the "Golden Mean", that good and evil are not opposites along a single axis, but good is in the middle, with evil at either extreme. With regards to Liberty, "too much" is anarchy, and too little is tyranny. As if anarchy is a bad thing. His superstitious belief in "limited government" is, of course, his "Golden Mean" of juicy goodness. He is wrong. Probably because he doesn't understand what evil is.
Evil is doing intentional harm to those who don't deserve to be harmed right now. Harm isn't on either side of good- it is the opposite of good no matter what justification you use. And, if it doesn't harm people, it isn't evil even if you think it wouldn't be the best path. Statism- the belief that governing people is a legitimate human endeavor- is evil because of the harm it inevitably causes to individual life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. You can't violate people "for their own good" no matter how passionately you make that silly claim.
Originally I intended to show how and why the author was wrong, bit by bit. Piece by piece. Paragraph by paragraph. Because he is wrong. In fact, either he is intentionally lying, or he's an idiot.
But the article is so incredibly long and full of fail that I realized quickly that to dissect it would require one of those multi-part blogs addressing slavery-apologists (statists) I have done in the past. I just don't feel like it. Besides, cutting through the BS of his "Golden Mean" idea of good and evil is probably all that is necessary to bring down his whole house of marked cards.
Feel free to read that article for yourself, and notice all the mistakes he makes- even if you don't get far into it, I'm confident you'll see more wrongness than you can keep up with. His flawed assumptions; his mischaracterizations; his non-sequiturs. The list is almost endless. Statism is a fail. From beginning to end. It is based on a superstition.
.
I would still rather be right- be accepting of reality- than be comfortable. I'd rather be right than be libertarian.
If reality doesn't support liberty, then I want to be aware of it and accept it and figure out what the reality is.
I don't want cognitive dissonance or compartmentalization to get in the way. Fantasies about how things are might be comforting to some people, but I don't want to coddle those fantasies.
But, the deeper I dig, the less sense statism makes to me. The more "arguments" I hear in support of "governments", "laws", "States", and initiating force and theft, the more insane they sound. The inconsistencies are simply too glaring to ignore.
But, trying to explore the possibilities to discover reality is why I read things like this: Compromising Good with Evil
Right off the bat he gets something completely wrong, which throws off the entire rest of his screed- he says libertarians think that "There simply can be no middle ground between the two fundamental philosophical opposites of freedom and slavery. Either we are a free society or a slave society, but we can't be both."
While that is a true statement, he goes on to say "This all libertarians agree upon, or they're not libertarians." So, this is the defining principle of libertarianism?
Ummm... wrong. Libertarians know that initiating force and violating private property are wrong. That's what makes them libertarians. The other things logically stem from that, but are not the foundation.
And, he goes downhill from there, just like every single criticism of Abolitionism/voluntaryism/anarchism/libertarianism I have ever encountered does- simply because they utterly fail to understand what they are trying to debunk. They argue from ignorance.
His entire article is based upon an appeal to authority- in this case, Aristotle and his "Golden Mean". The "Golden Mean" works for some things, like Goldilocks' "Not too cold or too hot- but just right". It doesn't work at all where Liberty is concerned. That's because Liberty is self-limiting. Your Liberty can't violate anyone else, or it ceases to be Liberty. And "government" always violates Liberty.
He claims, using the idea of the "Golden Mean", that good and evil are not opposites along a single axis, but good is in the middle, with evil at either extreme. With regards to Liberty, "too much" is anarchy, and too little is tyranny. As if anarchy is a bad thing. His superstitious belief in "limited government" is, of course, his "Golden Mean" of juicy goodness. He is wrong. Probably because he doesn't understand what evil is.
Evil is doing intentional harm to those who don't deserve to be harmed right now. Harm isn't on either side of good- it is the opposite of good no matter what justification you use. And, if it doesn't harm people, it isn't evil even if you think it wouldn't be the best path. Statism- the belief that governing people is a legitimate human endeavor- is evil because of the harm it inevitably causes to individual life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. You can't violate people "for their own good" no matter how passionately you make that silly claim.
Originally I intended to show how and why the author was wrong, bit by bit. Piece by piece. Paragraph by paragraph. Because he is wrong. In fact, either he is intentionally lying, or he's an idiot.
But the article is so incredibly long and full of fail that I realized quickly that to dissect it would require one of those multi-part blogs addressing slavery-apologists (statists) I have done in the past. I just don't feel like it. Besides, cutting through the BS of his "Golden Mean" idea of good and evil is probably all that is necessary to bring down his whole house of marked cards.
Feel free to read that article for yourself, and notice all the mistakes he makes- even if you don't get far into it, I'm confident you'll see more wrongness than you can keep up with. His flawed assumptions; his mischaracterizations; his non-sequiturs. The list is almost endless. Statism is a fail. From beginning to end. It is based on a superstition.
.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Would you stop a bank robbery?
Would I intervene to stop a bank robbery?
I'm not so sure.
I suppose if innocent people were in danger, I might. But if it was just to stop a theft... probably not.
Banks have become a tool of the State. From their compliance with all the vile "Patriot act" nonsense to "fractional reserve" banking (which I consider fraud), they are totally controlled by the State and its "laws". They have become nothing more than a branch of "government"- complicit in violating their customers for the benefit of that gang of thugs calling themselves "government".
At least they can't (yet) force you to do business with them against your will.
That doesn't mean I would steal from a bank, but I certainly wouldn't risk my life to stop someone else from doing so.
If it were a free market bank the story would be different. In that case I would look upon a bank robbery as I would any other violation of property, and would do all I could to stop it.
.
I'm not so sure.
I suppose if innocent people were in danger, I might. But if it was just to stop a theft... probably not.
Banks have become a tool of the State. From their compliance with all the vile "Patriot act" nonsense to "fractional reserve" banking (which I consider fraud), they are totally controlled by the State and its "laws". They have become nothing more than a branch of "government"- complicit in violating their customers for the benefit of that gang of thugs calling themselves "government".
At least they can't (yet) force you to do business with them against your will.
That doesn't mean I would steal from a bank, but I certainly wouldn't risk my life to stop someone else from doing so.
If it were a free market bank the story would be different. In that case I would look upon a bank robbery as I would any other violation of property, and would do all I could to stop it.
.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
4-19: "Patriots Day"
I used to get all worked up over 4-19. "Patriots Day".
It has sorta lost its appeal to me. I now see it as people fighting over which masters they want. A silly and self-defeating thing if there ever was one. And considering what most people think of as "patriotic" makes me ill.
So, sure, use 4-19 as an excuse if you need one and exercise your liberty today. And the next. And next week and beyond.
You don't need an example; you don't need a leader. Just do it. You know what you need to do right now- opinions of the local goon syndicate notwithstanding. Ignore them as much as possible, sneak behind their backs if you must, and do what you need to do.
.
It has sorta lost its appeal to me. I now see it as people fighting over which masters they want. A silly and self-defeating thing if there ever was one. And considering what most people think of as "patriotic" makes me ill.
So, sure, use 4-19 as an excuse if you need one and exercise your liberty today. And the next. And next week and beyond.
You don't need an example; you don't need a leader. Just do it. You know what you need to do right now- opinions of the local goon syndicate notwithstanding. Ignore them as much as possible, sneak behind their backs if you must, and do what you need to do.
.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
A wrinkle in "A Wrinkle in Time"
I read "A Wrinkle in Time" when I was in ... either late elementary school or early junior high. Strange that I can't pin it down, since it is usually easy for me to remember where I lived when I first read something- and I moved constantly. Maybe my timeline has wrinkles I am not aware of.
But, anyway, I remember feeling a bit disturbed by the book. Just a sense of unease. Some of the images stuck with me, and still do, but at the time I didn't enjoy the book. I need to read it again.
Well, a new passage has recently been discovered.
In it, the heroine is asking how Camazotz was taken over by evil. Her father explains that evil can take over through totalitarianism, but also from a desire for too much security. He says “Security is a most seductive thing...I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the greatest evil there is.”
Dead on!
Now, if only he had pointed out that all "governing" will inevitably lead to the same place.
Read the WSJ's take on the new passage here.
.
But, anyway, I remember feeling a bit disturbed by the book. Just a sense of unease. Some of the images stuck with me, and still do, but at the time I didn't enjoy the book. I need to read it again.
Well, a new passage has recently been discovered.
In it, the heroine is asking how Camazotz was taken over by evil. Her father explains that evil can take over through totalitarianism, but also from a desire for too much security. He says “Security is a most seductive thing...I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the greatest evil there is.”
Dead on!
Now, if only he had pointed out that all "governing" will inevitably lead to the same place.
-
Read the WSJ's take on the new passage here.
.
Do professional rapists protect you from freelance rapists?
The excuse that "some people do bad things" as justification for your belief in "government" is the same as saying that it would be best to allow professional rapists to prey on people rather than to risk freelance rapists.
And, of course, in the mind which operates like this, it would be wrong to resist or shoot the professional rapists because they protect you from the other rapists.
That's insane. Don't be insane.
Don't advocate professional rape because amateur rapists are out there. Just shoot the rapists.
.
And, of course, in the mind which operates like this, it would be wrong to resist or shoot the professional rapists because they protect you from the other rapists.
That's insane. Don't be insane.
Don't advocate professional rape because amateur rapists are out there. Just shoot the rapists.
.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Pardon my mess while I evolve
I just read "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose: A very good book which I highly recommend. (And FINALLY available in a Kindle edition, too!)
This "most dangerous superstition" is the belief in the imaginary trait known as "authority"; something that doesn't exist because it can't exist. Without the belief in it, bullies are just bullies, and theft is just theft- something I have tried to get across, but without understanding the root problem.
I was always said to "have a problem with authority", but now I am seeing that you can't have a problem with something imaginary, except by believing in it.
My only complaint with the book is that I think a Reader's Digest version might have more impact, because some things are repeated more times than I think necessary- on the other hand, repetition gets things to stick in your mind.
Anyway, I feel myself evolving again. As is always the case, it is toward more Liberty, with fewer inconsistencies. Once again I feel like more heavy baggage has been tossed aside, and I always like it when that happens. Not sure if anyone will notice a difference, but I can sure feel a difference.
.
This "most dangerous superstition" is the belief in the imaginary trait known as "authority"; something that doesn't exist because it can't exist. Without the belief in it, bullies are just bullies, and theft is just theft- something I have tried to get across, but without understanding the root problem.
I was always said to "have a problem with authority", but now I am seeing that you can't have a problem with something imaginary, except by believing in it.
My only complaint with the book is that I think a Reader's Digest version might have more impact, because some things are repeated more times than I think necessary- on the other hand, repetition gets things to stick in your mind.
Anyway, I feel myself evolving again. As is always the case, it is toward more Liberty, with fewer inconsistencies. Once again I feel like more heavy baggage has been tossed aside, and I always like it when that happens. Not sure if anyone will notice a difference, but I can sure feel a difference.
.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Compromises between bad guys
"National borders" represent compromises between thieving thugs. Really, that's all they are.
Buying into them is propping up those thieving thugs on both sides of the "border".
"Borders" have no more legitimacy than the line separating the turf of the Blips and the Cruds- actually, even less. They only indicate the probable loyalty of the particular thug whose boot is on your neck right now.
Why would you want to keep propping up such a harmful superstition?
.
Buying into them is propping up those thieving thugs on both sides of the "border".
"Borders" have no more legitimacy than the line separating the turf of the Blips and the Cruds- actually, even less. They only indicate the probable loyalty of the particular thug whose boot is on your neck right now.
Why would you want to keep propping up such a harmful superstition?
.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Honorable people don't
Is it honorable to hire yourself out to a gang?
To employ yourself, and spend your time, imposing the gangleader's wishes on others?
Molesting, aggressing, killing and violating property in the course of your employment?
Can you be a good person while doing so?
No. It isn't honorable. Not ever for any reason.
Military and cops are not "honorable".
.
To employ yourself, and spend your time, imposing the gangleader's wishes on others?
Molesting, aggressing, killing and violating property in the course of your employment?
Can you be a good person while doing so?
No. It isn't honorable. Not ever for any reason.
Military and cops are not "honorable".
.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Lawmakers much like rabid hyenas
Lawmakers much like rabid hyenas
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 13, 2015- However, I'm NOT just talking about "lawmakers" as the headline states- I'm talking about government employees of every sort.)
Why does so much news revolve around the individuals who call themselves "government"?
It's because they impose themselves in our lives. They make it necessary to know, in self defense, what they are up to. Through their actions they are a real and present danger to your life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property.
If a rabid hyena made its home under your porch you would think about it a lot; probably to the point of obsession. You couldn't afford to ignore it.
It's the same with those who believe they have the authority to interfere with your life. They are newsworthy only because of the damage and inconveniences they cause- although they fool some into believing they are helpful.
If they were no danger to your person or property who would want to waste any time thinking about them, much less reading or hearing about them? Without the media coverage those who fawn over them might suffer withdrawal, but the rest of us would be spared the constant parade of petty tyrants, their endless nannying, and their despicable deeds.
I would love to see a week where nothing done by government was reported in the news at all; just one week when they were all completely ignored.
Of course, that's dangerous. They would use the opportunity to attack your life in secret. Laws don't stop them. The only reason they restrain themselves as much as they do is because they know they are being watched. Not by everyone, but by enough people, and particularly by those who don't like what they see; those who look beyond what the politicians and bureaucrats say, and see what they actually do and observe the consequences.
It doesn't always work, as was frustratingly illustrated by the recent (and misnamed) "Net Neutrality" fiasco.
So watching them is necessary if you allow their make-work jobs to exist at all- which is the root of the problem.
During the heyday of America a person could go about their business for a lifetime and, as long as they weren't a thief or aggressor, never encounter government. It wasn't a constant presence. How many times have you been meddled with just today- through taxes, licenses, permits, laws, or by automatically altering your behavior to comply with some nonsensical rule to which you have become habituated?
As long as the popular addiction to allowing other people to control their lives exists, I'll be glad there are people reporting on what those in government are doing- even if reporters often coddle them by pretending government jobs are helpful or even necessary. I hunger for the day when they can be safely ignored.
.
Why does so much news revolve around the individuals who call themselves "government"?
It's because they impose themselves in our lives. They make it necessary to know, in self defense, what they are up to. Through their actions they are a real and present danger to your life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property.
If a rabid hyena made its home under your porch you would think about it a lot; probably to the point of obsession. You couldn't afford to ignore it.
It's the same with those who believe they have the authority to interfere with your life. They are newsworthy only because of the damage and inconveniences they cause- although they fool some into believing they are helpful.
If they were no danger to your person or property who would want to waste any time thinking about them, much less reading or hearing about them? Without the media coverage those who fawn over them might suffer withdrawal, but the rest of us would be spared the constant parade of petty tyrants, their endless nannying, and their despicable deeds.
I would love to see a week where nothing done by government was reported in the news at all; just one week when they were all completely ignored.
Of course, that's dangerous. They would use the opportunity to attack your life in secret. Laws don't stop them. The only reason they restrain themselves as much as they do is because they know they are being watched. Not by everyone, but by enough people, and particularly by those who don't like what they see; those who look beyond what the politicians and bureaucrats say, and see what they actually do and observe the consequences.
It doesn't always work, as was frustratingly illustrated by the recent (and misnamed) "Net Neutrality" fiasco.
So watching them is necessary if you allow their make-work jobs to exist at all- which is the root of the problem.
During the heyday of America a person could go about their business for a lifetime and, as long as they weren't a thief or aggressor, never encounter government. It wasn't a constant presence. How many times have you been meddled with just today- through taxes, licenses, permits, laws, or by automatically altering your behavior to comply with some nonsensical rule to which you have become habituated?
As long as the popular addiction to allowing other people to control their lives exists, I'll be glad there are people reporting on what those in government are doing- even if reporters often coddle them by pretending government jobs are helpful or even necessary. I hunger for the day when they can be safely ignored.
.
"Law abiding taxpayer"
(Previously posted to Patreon)
"Law abiding taxpayer" is a really perverted term. When someone claims to be one, what they are really bragging about is the "honor" of being a compliant victim of theft and bullies.
Why brag about something that pathetic?
You might as well brag about being a cowardly back-stabber.
I understand why people pay the extortion called "taxes". Extortion works, otherwise thugs would find something else to try. But, be ashamed you were robbed, not proud of it.
And since "laws" are ALL either unnecessary or harmful, there is no honor in being "law abiding" either.
Don't initiate force. Don't violate the property of others. Those are things you can really be proud of- be a ZAP abiding property respecter, not a proudly compliant victim.
.
"Law abiding taxpayer" is a really perverted term. When someone claims to be one, what they are really bragging about is the "honor" of being a compliant victim of theft and bullies.
Why brag about something that pathetic?
You might as well brag about being a cowardly back-stabber.
I understand why people pay the extortion called "taxes". Extortion works, otherwise thugs would find something else to try. But, be ashamed you were robbed, not proud of it.
And since "laws" are ALL either unnecessary or harmful, there is no honor in being "law abiding" either.
Don't initiate force. Don't violate the property of others. Those are things you can really be proud of- be a ZAP abiding property respecter, not a proudly compliant victim.
.
Intentions
I don't care about your intentions; I care about what you do.
I'd rather you do good with the absolute most horrible intentions than have good intentions while doing bad.
That's why I oppose those supposed "good cops" and military tools who are claimed to do what they do with the best of intentions. The results of what they do are bad.
The results are what matters. That's all that can matter.
.
I'd rather you do good with the absolute most horrible intentions than have good intentions while doing bad.
That's why I oppose those supposed "good cops" and military tools who are claimed to do what they do with the best of intentions. The results of what they do are bad.
The results are what matters. That's all that can matter.
.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Department of... what?
I was recently looking at a sign in front of a prison. The sign declared that the facility was a part of the "Texas Department of Justice".
That almost made me laugh. There is no justice in imprisonment.
So, I thought to myself that the sign should be changed to "Texas Department of Punishment" if truth in advertising were a real thing where The State is concerned.
Then I realized even that wasn't sufficient. For the sign to be really truthful it would need to say "Texas Department of Revenge". That's what we are really talking about here. And I am opposed to revenge- even though I have been guilty of vengeance a few times in the past.
I'd take it upon myself to change their misleading sign, but I don't feel like being made the focus of revenge by the authority-bloated bad guys who believe they own the facility built and maintained with stolen money.
.
That almost made me laugh. There is no justice in imprisonment.
So, I thought to myself that the sign should be changed to "Texas Department of Punishment" if truth in advertising were a real thing where The State is concerned.
Then I realized even that wasn't sufficient. For the sign to be really truthful it would need to say "Texas Department of Revenge". That's what we are really talking about here. And I am opposed to revenge- even though I have been guilty of vengeance a few times in the past.
I'd take it upon myself to change their misleading sign, but I don't feel like being made the focus of revenge by the authority-bloated bad guys who believe they own the facility built and maintained with stolen money.
.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
A preference for Liberty
People act like a preference for Liberty is the same as a preference for ice tea over Dr Pepper. But it isn't.
You may have lots of reasons to prefer one drink over another, but really it comes down to opinions. You can point to differing health effects of the drinks, comparative costs, or whatever, but neither is ethically superior to the other. People make their choices and it's none of your business.
Not so with a preference for Liberty.
Because the opposite is quite definitely ethically (and usually, morally) inferior.
The desire to limit liberty is the desire to violate others. Liberty is self-limiting. It ends where another's liberty begins. So any preference to limit liberty necessarily violates liberty.
A preference for Liberty begins with respecting Liberty in others. That's the civilized way to be.
.
You may have lots of reasons to prefer one drink over another, but really it comes down to opinions. You can point to differing health effects of the drinks, comparative costs, or whatever, but neither is ethically superior to the other. People make their choices and it's none of your business.
Not so with a preference for Liberty.
Because the opposite is quite definitely ethically (and usually, morally) inferior.
The desire to limit liberty is the desire to violate others. Liberty is self-limiting. It ends where another's liberty begins. So any preference to limit liberty necessarily violates liberty.
A preference for Liberty begins with respecting Liberty in others. That's the civilized way to be.
.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Daughter's request
My daughter is wanting a day out at the movies. I don't have the extra money for such an expenditure.
It's my responsibility, and I'm trying to use this as a teaching opportunity, but she's tired of hearing it.
So, if anyone would like to subsidize a "date" day with a Paypal donation, she would appreciate it. And so would I.
.
It's my responsibility, and I'm trying to use this as a teaching opportunity, but she's tired of hearing it.
So, if anyone would like to subsidize a "date" day with a Paypal donation, she would appreciate it. And so would I.
.
If I were mayor
After last week's Liberty Lines came out in the paper, one person suggested I should run for mayor.
No, I shouldn't. And partially because the thought appeals to my dark side. There is one "political litmus test"- Do you want the job? If so, you are disqualified. Not to mention the "job" of "mayor" shouldn't exist at all.
But, letting my dark side fantasize just a bit, and justifying the fantasy with the idea that at least I'd keep someone worse (that's right- I'd be the lesser evil) from holding the "job" as long as I held it...
Instead of posting reminders about getting building permits before improving your property (as the current clownishly evil mayor did in the same issue of the paper where my column appeared) I would post this:
.
No, I shouldn't. And partially because the thought appeals to my dark side. There is one "political litmus test"- Do you want the job? If so, you are disqualified. Not to mention the "job" of "mayor" shouldn't exist at all.
But, letting my dark side fantasize just a bit, and justifying the fantasy with the idea that at least I'd keep someone worse (that's right- I'd be the lesser evil) from holding the "job" as long as I held it...
Instead of posting reminders about getting building permits before improving your property (as the current clownishly evil mayor did in the same issue of the paper where my column appeared) I would post this:
People of Farwell- from now on, there are only two rules in town: Do not violate anyone by attacking them, and Do not violate anyone's private property. That's it. I will not stand behind the police if they enforce any other "law", nor if by doing so they violate those two rules.
"Do not violate anyone by attacking them" can best be summed up by the Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." If you "initiate force"- that means "start it"- your victim can legitimately defend himself against you, no matter who you are, and no matter what your job may be. Thugs be warned!
Another way to explain the re-adoption of these forgotten rules is in the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
All other "laws" violate the rights of the individual. Do not violate anyone or their private property and we'll be fine.
.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Shaneen Allen- the wrap-up.
The good news is that Shaneen Allen got pardoned.
The bad news is that she was molested in the first place- and that her molesters are still alive.
Julie On Politics has been following the case from the beginning (see also here, here, and here).
No one has any "authority" to kidnap, cage, and rob a person for carrying a gun. Not anyone anywhere.
So, the cop who first violated her right to travel, the corrupt lawyer who charged her with a "crime", the "judge"- everyone who even facilitated her abuse in any supportive role- is guilty of violating her and owes her restitution from their own pocket. They can't afford the restitution they owe.
Of course, none will have to pay because they can hide behind the mental glitch of "government" and "law".
That is what makes me really angry over this whole incident. If people would just stop pretending these thugs have any special, magical "right" to molest people in ways no one has a right to do, things like this would never happen. She could have shot the guy trying to molest her as she traveled and, after short arbitration where it was shown he initiated force, that would have been the end of it.
.
The bad news is that she was molested in the first place- and that her molesters are still alive.
Julie On Politics has been following the case from the beginning (see also here, here, and here).
No one has any "authority" to kidnap, cage, and rob a person for carrying a gun. Not anyone anywhere.
So, the cop who first violated her right to travel, the corrupt lawyer who charged her with a "crime", the "judge"- everyone who even facilitated her abuse in any supportive role- is guilty of violating her and owes her restitution from their own pocket. They can't afford the restitution they owe.
Of course, none will have to pay because they can hide behind the mental glitch of "government" and "law".
That is what makes me really angry over this whole incident. If people would just stop pretending these thugs have any special, magical "right" to molest people in ways no one has a right to do, things like this would never happen. She could have shot the guy trying to molest her as she traveled and, after short arbitration where it was shown he initiated force, that would have been the end of it.
.
Thursday, April 09, 2015
My next door neighbor is awesome.
This was in this week's State Line Tribune, in response to my most recent Liberty Lines. It was unsolicited, in fact, I haven't even spoken to her since my column came out.
.
Voluntaryist volunteers
I was recently told by a government extremist that they doubt I ever volunteer. They were speaking specifically about teaching (other people's) kids, but as I won't participate in classroom settings anymore, that limits my opportunities around here. They claimed that was no excuse.
Perhaps. But that's not the only way to volunteer.
I actually have done classroom volunteering in the past. I have taught kids about mountainmen and demonstrated the mountainman skills. Without setting the school on fire or shooting anyone.
Now my volunteer work is mostly of a different nature.
For one, spending vast amounts of time debating statists in order to try to give them a hand improving the quality of their lives. Or at least helping observers see the truth and rightness of Rightful Liberty.
But that's not all. I pick up litter. A lot. I find it relaxing, and it also helps "the community" while it improves my life.
I have also taught kids- informally and on the spur of the moment- many different things I know. Just because I didn't set myself up as Teacher and make them take the role of Student doesn't mean I didn't teach them. (They have also taught me every time I taught them.)
But "liberals" have claimed I am a nasty, self-centered individualist, unlike themselves. Because I don't do it their approved way, through their approved channels, teaching their approved agenda.
I consider that another plus to me.
How many of you do volunteer work?
.
Perhaps. But that's not the only way to volunteer.
I actually have done classroom volunteering in the past. I have taught kids about mountainmen and demonstrated the mountainman skills. Without setting the school on fire or shooting anyone.
Now my volunteer work is mostly of a different nature.
For one, spending vast amounts of time debating statists in order to try to give them a hand improving the quality of their lives. Or at least helping observers see the truth and rightness of Rightful Liberty.
But that's not all. I pick up litter. A lot. I find it relaxing, and it also helps "the community" while it improves my life.
I have also taught kids- informally and on the spur of the moment- many different things I know. Just because I didn't set myself up as Teacher and make them take the role of Student doesn't mean I didn't teach them. (They have also taught me every time I taught them.)
But "liberals" have claimed I am a nasty, self-centered individualist, unlike themselves. Because I don't do it their approved way, through their approved channels, teaching their approved agenda.
I consider that another plus to me.
How many of you do volunteer work?
.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Death by broccoli- Death by liberty
Broccoli is healthy for you to eat, eating only broccoli isn't healthy. Some statists believe liberty is like that. Some is good, but "too much" is unhealthy.
They are wrong.
Is "too much" bad?
No.
First of all, there is no such thing as "too much" liberty, since liberty is self limiting- it ends where someone else's begins. Your liberty can not violate another person's- by definition.
Because liberty is doing anything which doesn't violate any other person or their property. There is no way for that to be bad.
In other words, some statists are grasping for justifications to enslave you so they'll feel more comfortable. Disgusting.
.
They are wrong.
Is "too much" bad?
No.
First of all, there is no such thing as "too much" liberty, since liberty is self limiting- it ends where someone else's begins. Your liberty can not violate another person's- by definition.
Because liberty is doing anything which doesn't violate any other person or their property. There is no way for that to be bad.
In other words, some statists are grasping for justifications to enslave you so they'll feel more comfortable. Disgusting.
.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
Only government wins in election
Only government wins in election
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 6, 2015)
I’m sure you’ve seen the “Peanuts” cartoons where Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown to kick, promising him she won’t pull it away this time. This time he’ll kick it. But every time she pulls the football away at the last instant and poor Charlie Brown lands flat on his back. How can he be surprised by the inevitable?
You may have also played a game with a habitual cheater. The kind who changes the rules to benefit himself as he plays. As the game progresses, they always discover a reason they win and you lose- and the new rule is as much a surprise to them as it is to you. Little kids are really bad about this.
Most adults grow out of it; the rest go into government.
Haven't you noticed no matter who you vote for, and no matter who wins, nothing really changes for the better? "This is the most important election in generations! This time your vote will make a difference! I promise!" Do you, like Charlie Brown, fall for it every time? Are you still surprised when voting for the lesser of two evils results in more evil? Are you shocked when, in spite of what your candidate says, once in office he does the same things he spent the campaign criticizing his opponent for doing?
Do you keep doing the same thing every election cycle, expecting different results each time?
I can't fault you too much. There is a powerful desire to keep doing what you've been assured can bring about the changes you want- even when you realize the system is rigged against you. What other choice is there? You get caught up and find yourself whipped into a frenzy; anxious to help choose the next person who'll impose invented rules upon your neighbors.
In any election, the only winner is the government. You and liberty are the consistent losers. With everyone voting for someone who promises to hurt the other guy on their behalf, America gets further and further away from what it was established to be.
I'm not telling you to stop voting if voting makes you feel as though you are doing something. I'm not telling you to reject politics. I'm not even telling you to keep your own house in order and let others do the same- even if their idea of order is different from yours. What I am telling you is you probably shouldn't be shocked when you get the result you keep voting for. When you find yourself on your back wondering how you missed the ball again, take a moment to reflect on your actions.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 6, 2015)
I’m sure you’ve seen the “Peanuts” cartoons where Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown to kick, promising him she won’t pull it away this time. This time he’ll kick it. But every time she pulls the football away at the last instant and poor Charlie Brown lands flat on his back. How can he be surprised by the inevitable?
You may have also played a game with a habitual cheater. The kind who changes the rules to benefit himself as he plays. As the game progresses, they always discover a reason they win and you lose- and the new rule is as much a surprise to them as it is to you. Little kids are really bad about this.
Most adults grow out of it; the rest go into government.
Haven't you noticed no matter who you vote for, and no matter who wins, nothing really changes for the better? "This is the most important election in generations! This time your vote will make a difference! I promise!" Do you, like Charlie Brown, fall for it every time? Are you still surprised when voting for the lesser of two evils results in more evil? Are you shocked when, in spite of what your candidate says, once in office he does the same things he spent the campaign criticizing his opponent for doing?
Do you keep doing the same thing every election cycle, expecting different results each time?
I can't fault you too much. There is a powerful desire to keep doing what you've been assured can bring about the changes you want- even when you realize the system is rigged against you. What other choice is there? You get caught up and find yourself whipped into a frenzy; anxious to help choose the next person who'll impose invented rules upon your neighbors.
In any election, the only winner is the government. You and liberty are the consistent losers. With everyone voting for someone who promises to hurt the other guy on their behalf, America gets further and further away from what it was established to be.
I'm not telling you to stop voting if voting makes you feel as though you are doing something. I'm not telling you to reject politics. I'm not even telling you to keep your own house in order and let others do the same- even if their idea of order is different from yours. What I am telling you is you probably shouldn't be shocked when you get the result you keep voting for. When you find yourself on your back wondering how you missed the ball again, take a moment to reflect on your actions.
.
Killing people
In killing another human being, it is either self defense, defense of property, or it is murder.
It is only self defense if the person is currently attacking or threatening to attack in a credible manner.
It is only defense of property if the person is violating your property through theft, destruction, or trespassing- and you'd better be sure the violation is serious enough to be worth killing over (and that any arbitration you might face would agree).
.
It is only self defense if the person is currently attacking or threatening to attack in a credible manner.
It is only defense of property if the person is violating your property through theft, destruction, or trespassing- and you'd better be sure the violation is serious enough to be worth killing over (and that any arbitration you might face would agree).
.
Monday, April 06, 2015
Sometimes, they really aren't a Scotsman
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I know the danger of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Yet, if you were born on Mars to genetically (or whatever Martians might use in place of genes) distinct Martians and have never visited Earth, you are ridiculous to claim that you are a Scotsman.
It's the same if you claim to be a "libertarian" while advocating anti-libertarian positions. Like some "fairer taxes". Or "borders". Or the "tax"-financed military which is busily building the US Empire around the globe- and endangering everyone "at home" in America. Or, if you put the US Constitution above individual Rightful Liberty.
If you don't fit the minimum definition of a libertarian, you ain't one.
If you don't follow the ZAP to the best of your ability, and respect the private property of others, you may be a relatively nice statist, but whatever you are, it isn't libertarian.
I have had self-proclaimed libertarians scold me using those anti-libertarian positions ever since I first got online and vocal. "Libertarians honor the Constitution above all" was the first example of this, said to me after I mentioned I had no love for a document which set up a State and then failed to restrain it.
That was followed with "The income tax is legal- get over it!"
I have also had people say that because "borders" might help prolong "liberty" in America better than no borders, support for borders is the only "libertarian" position. Well, going on a well-coordiated mass killing spree against statists might mean a larger percentage of libertarians, compared to statists, alive in America, too, but it would still be an anti-libertarian (meaning: wrong) thing to do.
And, if you insist on worshiping the military because you were in it, or had friends or family in it- who may have even been maimed or killed- it's the same thing. Support for a State military is an anti-libertarian position, no matter how much you like it. No matter how "necessary" you might belive it to be. It can't be otherwise.
You have to meet certain criteria to honestly call yourself libertarian (or AVAL [abolitionist/voluntaryist/anarchist/libertarian], as the case may be). If you don't meet those criteria, then accept the fact- or change to align yourself with the right side.
.
I know the danger of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Yet, if you were born on Mars to genetically (or whatever Martians might use in place of genes) distinct Martians and have never visited Earth, you are ridiculous to claim that you are a Scotsman.
It's the same if you claim to be a "libertarian" while advocating anti-libertarian positions. Like some "fairer taxes". Or "borders". Or the "tax"-financed military which is busily building the US Empire around the globe- and endangering everyone "at home" in America. Or, if you put the US Constitution above individual Rightful Liberty.
If you don't fit the minimum definition of a libertarian, you ain't one.
If you don't follow the ZAP to the best of your ability, and respect the private property of others, you may be a relatively nice statist, but whatever you are, it isn't libertarian.
I have had self-proclaimed libertarians scold me using those anti-libertarian positions ever since I first got online and vocal. "Libertarians honor the Constitution above all" was the first example of this, said to me after I mentioned I had no love for a document which set up a State and then failed to restrain it.
That was followed with "The income tax is legal- get over it!"
I have also had people say that because "borders" might help prolong "liberty" in America better than no borders, support for borders is the only "libertarian" position. Well, going on a well-coordiated mass killing spree against statists might mean a larger percentage of libertarians, compared to statists, alive in America, too, but it would still be an anti-libertarian (meaning: wrong) thing to do.
And, if you insist on worshiping the military because you were in it, or had friends or family in it- who may have even been maimed or killed- it's the same thing. Support for a State military is an anti-libertarian position, no matter how much you like it. No matter how "necessary" you might belive it to be. It can't be otherwise.
You have to meet certain criteria to honestly call yourself libertarian (or AVAL [abolitionist/voluntaryist/anarchist/libertarian], as the case may be). If you don't meet those criteria, then accept the fact- or change to align yourself with the right side.
.
"Constitutional" doesn't mean "legitimate"
Admitting that a government, a branch of government, or a "law" is "constitutional" in no way suggests that it has any legitimacy.
It only means the Constitution permits it.
That's a huge difference.
.
It only means the Constitution permits it.
That's a huge difference.
.
Sunday, April 05, 2015
Wedding cakes and other horrifying cultural disasters
Here's a suggestion which should- I repeat, should- make everyone happy and end the Great Gay Wedding Cake Battles.
On the part of the customer: Order the cake.
On the part of the baker: Bake and decorate the cake, leaving off any bride or groom figurines. Offer figurines for sale at the counter, separately and individually.
On the part of the customer: Buy the cake. Buy figurines of whatever gender or number and stick them in the icing of the cake in whatever arrangement makes you happy.
The end.
Yeah, I know. Everyone wants their choices validated by making them public and obnoxious. This peaceful solution doesn't satisfy that need.
.
On the part of the customer: Order the cake.
On the part of the baker: Bake and decorate the cake, leaving off any bride or groom figurines. Offer figurines for sale at the counter, separately and individually.
On the part of the customer: Buy the cake. Buy figurines of whatever gender or number and stick them in the icing of the cake in whatever arrangement makes you happy.
The end.
Yeah, I know. Everyone wants their choices validated by making them public and obnoxious. This peaceful solution doesn't satisfy that need.
.
Saturday, April 04, 2015
"Guilty of desertion"
Sure, you can be guilty of desertion.
If you sign a valid contract which lays out your responsibilities and what you will get in exchange, if you run away before the expiration of that contract you deserted it. You might owe some restitution, and you wouldn't be eligible for any continuing benefits from that contract. And people would know and understand that you don't honor your agreements.
Of course, no contract which enslaves you is valid. No contract which calls for you to be caged if you decide to break it can be valid. No contract which requires you to live off theft, kill, and possibly be killed is valid. No contract which has individual penalties for only one side in case of a broken contract is valid.
No contract which by its very nature violates Rightful Liberty can ever be valid. You are not obligated to abide by it and you are not a bad guy merely by breaking it.
Which comes to that military delusion of "desertion".
The silliest objection to this "crime" is that they expose their military "brothers" to harm. Those "brothers" should follow the good example and also desert if they feel endangered. Staying in the military is in no way "honorable". Working for The State in any capacity is dishonorable. Always.
I appreciate those who break their contract with the mafia or any other organization which victimizes me by stealing my property and liberty. An organization which by its very existence makes me and those I love less safe. I don't care why they do it. I don't care if they are a really nasty character otherwise.
.
If you sign a valid contract which lays out your responsibilities and what you will get in exchange, if you run away before the expiration of that contract you deserted it. You might owe some restitution, and you wouldn't be eligible for any continuing benefits from that contract. And people would know and understand that you don't honor your agreements.
Of course, no contract which enslaves you is valid. No contract which calls for you to be caged if you decide to break it can be valid. No contract which requires you to live off theft, kill, and possibly be killed is valid. No contract which has individual penalties for only one side in case of a broken contract is valid.
No contract which by its very nature violates Rightful Liberty can ever be valid. You are not obligated to abide by it and you are not a bad guy merely by breaking it.
Which comes to that military delusion of "desertion".
The silliest objection to this "crime" is that they expose their military "brothers" to harm. Those "brothers" should follow the good example and also desert if they feel endangered. Staying in the military is in no way "honorable". Working for The State in any capacity is dishonorable. Always.
I appreciate those who break their contract with the mafia or any other organization which victimizes me by stealing my property and liberty. An organization which by its very existence makes me and those I love less safe. I don't care why they do it. I don't care if they are a really nasty character otherwise.
.
Thursday, April 02, 2015
Liberty Lines 4-2-2015
(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)
[Background- recently the local police chief, apparently under direction of the mayor, has been focusing on "building permits". A woman had a carport installed in front of her house without a "permit" and the cop showed up as it was being completed and threw his weight around. The carport was found to be a half inch "too close" (according to the "legal" distance of 15') to the curb. The builders moved the carport right up against the house and cut it a little shorter to comply. Now the "authorities" whine it is "too close" to her house. The city council is having a meeting to determine whether she will be forced to take it down. Then she built a fence. The mayor stopped by and threw a hissy fit. This time she had the "permit", even though the mayor said he hadn't seen her name on one- it was in the contractor's name.)
I am so glad I don't suffer from the lust to control other people's property. Judging by the people who find this an important "responsibility", it must be quite a burden.
It doesn't hurt me in any way if my neighbor puts a carport in front of their house, and in fact I am happy for them if they do, knowing it will improve their life.
That doesn't mean I would remain silent if they tried to build on my property, or violated my property in some other way, but I know my property ends at my property lines, and things that happen, and stay, on the other side of the line are not my business. "Law" or no "law".
I oppose silly and destructive laws requiring "permits" (more honestly called bribes) for remodeling your house or adding a deck.
As unpopular as it may be, I stand with those who exercise their American right- actually, their fundamental human right- to use their own property as they see fit without asking permission from anyone, as long as they don't harm the private property of anyone else.
Any law that seeks to violate private property is a counterfeit "law"; it is wrong and shouldn't be passed, and if it somehow gets passed anyway, it shouldn't be enforced. Ever. Those laws should be eliminated, and ignored until they are.
Of course, that would eliminate almost every law currently financing the growing US police state, so those who profit from it would never take such a radical notion- to respect private property- lying down.
A common objection is "property values", but think about that for a minute. The biggest consequence of "property values" is how much the local government will decide to ransom your property for each and every year. Lower property value means you get robbed a little less, and I see that as a good thing. But how can you really know a modification to your neighbor's property will lower your property's market value? Regardless of the opinion of those who make up the rules, people's tastes vary. Many people might value your house even more with the neighbor's modification next door.
I would rather live where people are happy and free to do with their property as they wish, without being molested by anyone, than in some postcard illustration of an imaginary "perfect neighborhood".
-
Update: Here is a letter to the editor in response to this column: link
.
[Background- recently the local police chief, apparently under direction of the mayor, has been focusing on "building permits". A woman had a carport installed in front of her house without a "permit" and the cop showed up as it was being completed and threw his weight around. The carport was found to be a half inch "too close" (according to the "legal" distance of 15') to the curb. The builders moved the carport right up against the house and cut it a little shorter to comply. Now the "authorities" whine it is "too close" to her house. The city council is having a meeting to determine whether she will be forced to take it down. Then she built a fence. The mayor stopped by and threw a hissy fit. This time she had the "permit", even though the mayor said he hadn't seen her name on one- it was in the contractor's name.)
I am so glad I don't suffer from the lust to control other people's property. Judging by the people who find this an important "responsibility", it must be quite a burden.
It doesn't hurt me in any way if my neighbor puts a carport in front of their house, and in fact I am happy for them if they do, knowing it will improve their life.
That doesn't mean I would remain silent if they tried to build on my property, or violated my property in some other way, but I know my property ends at my property lines, and things that happen, and stay, on the other side of the line are not my business. "Law" or no "law".
I oppose silly and destructive laws requiring "permits" (more honestly called bribes) for remodeling your house or adding a deck.
As unpopular as it may be, I stand with those who exercise their American right- actually, their fundamental human right- to use their own property as they see fit without asking permission from anyone, as long as they don't harm the private property of anyone else.
Any law that seeks to violate private property is a counterfeit "law"; it is wrong and shouldn't be passed, and if it somehow gets passed anyway, it shouldn't be enforced. Ever. Those laws should be eliminated, and ignored until they are.
Of course, that would eliminate almost every law currently financing the growing US police state, so those who profit from it would never take such a radical notion- to respect private property- lying down.
A common objection is "property values", but think about that for a minute. The biggest consequence of "property values" is how much the local government will decide to ransom your property for each and every year. Lower property value means you get robbed a little less, and I see that as a good thing. But how can you really know a modification to your neighbor's property will lower your property's market value? Regardless of the opinion of those who make up the rules, people's tastes vary. Many people might value your house even more with the neighbor's modification next door.
I would rather live where people are happy and free to do with their property as they wish, without being molested by anyone, than in some postcard illustration of an imaginary "perfect neighborhood".
-
Update: Here is a letter to the editor in response to this column: link
.
Wednesday, April 01, 2015
Is it really necessary?
If you work for government and justify your "job" by claiming if government didn't do it, no one would, then your "job" shouldn't be done.
It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe your work to be. If it is actually needed, someone will do it- without relying on theft and coercion to fund it. Probably much better than the pathetic government attempt at filling that "need".
If no one steps up, then the "job" needs to go away.
.
It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe your work to be. If it is actually needed, someone will do it- without relying on theft and coercion to fund it. Probably much better than the pathetic government attempt at filling that "need".
If no one steps up, then the "job" needs to go away.
.