Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Self defense a primary human right

Self defense a primary human right

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 29, 2015)

If someone is violating your personal rights — through aggression or by violating your property — you have the right to stop them.

Nothing, no justifications or excuses, can abolish or alter your right to defense of self or property. The right of defense is the primary human right; all others come from that one.

Aggression is the act of committing, or threatening, violence against someone who isn't currently using violence against you nor violating your property. The defining characteristic of libertarians is that they realize they have no right to use aggression. Self defense, even with violence, is not aggression; the other person started it.

If someone is doing something which doesn't violate your person or property, but still offends or bothers you in some way, how do you deal with it? There are a couple of very different ways people approach this situation, which highlight the difference of the libertarian response.

The first way to deal with this is childish, even barbaric, and is by far the most common way: you pretend to have the power-- or worse, the "authority"-- to control how other people live their lives, and you make up "laws" to use against them if they continue doing what you don't like. Using this tool, you violate their right to live unmolested; you violate their life, liberty, or property-- probably feeling righteous while doing so.

The other way is to try to convince them to change their ways, and if that doesn't work, as long as they don't become aggressive or try to violate your property, you walk away and mind your own business.

I know this isn't good enough for most people. It doesn't feel satisfying to them. They want a way to force others to stop doing what they don't want them to do-- even when they have no right to do so. They simply can't abide leaving people to live according to their own wishes if they find those wishes offensive in some way. They will invoke the "common good", "the children", "community standards", and all manner of justifications for doing the inexcusable. It's still wrong. You have no right to rule other people, and using force against non-aggressive people turns you into a thug.

Unless others are violating your person or property you have no right to control their actions-- and since you can't delegate a right you don't have, since it doesn't exist, you can't send enforcers, bureaucrats, or politicians after them without becoming the problem.

Do you value your rights to life, liberty, and property enough to respect the identical and equal rights of everyone else? Or do you intend to rule?


"Can't we all just be civil?"

Well, apparently not. It's not that I'm unwilling, but when someone gets into their head that they are entitled to any bit of my life, liberty, or property- and believes it's OK to violate me as long as they do it "legally" and send others to pull the trigger for them- then all this "civility" is suicidal.

You can't soft-peddle what it is they are advocating doing to you.

You need to call a spade a spade. Don't fall into the trap of using the euphemisms which have been carefully crafted to hide the nature of their monstrous behavior. Don't be so careful to not offend their delicate feelings that you sacrifice good people on their altar.

Some things really are so bad that you shouldn't be civil about them. Slavery- of any sort- is one of those things. Those calling for the enslavement of others are horrible people- and that is all that statism is.

I'm sorry if criticizing a statist for their beliefs makes them feel bad. Wait- no I'm not. If you believe horrible, harmful, nasty things you need to feel bad. Your feelings should be hurt.

For many things in life, you don't need to pick sides. Pizza isn't objectively "better than" enchiladas. But liberty is better than slavery. If you are an advocate of slavery you need to feel bad about it. If you try to lie about where your beliefs lead, you need to be shamed.

I get really tired of statists trying to insist that it's "just a matter of opinions", and everyone's opinions are equally valid. No, they absolutely are not.

If you support government, you support slavery. You should be ashamed.


Monday, June 29, 2015

Gay marriage, collective punishment, and licenses

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Those who argue against the supreme courtjesters' "marriage equality" decision on religious grounds confuse me.

They say things such as "god will not be mocked", and "expect god's judgment" (to fall on us all for this ruling). Yes, I have actually seen both posted over this.

Does this mean they believe their god is evil and engages in collective punishment just like some nasty kinderprison "teacher"?

Because, make no mistake, collective punishment IS evil. It is punishing the innocent along with the guilty because the innocent failed to... what? Kill the guilty person as soon as the offence was discovered? And because it's too hard for the punisher to sort them out?

The guilty are guilty. And, if you haven't initiated force or violated property rights you aren't guilty. Good people understand the difference.

But, ignoring that, I realize a lot of religious rules involve things that are "immoral" (as judged by that religion) but not unethical- they don't involve aggression or rights violations. Still collective punishment for even these things- within the religious community who believes those particular rules- seems twisted.

If I am in a room with some number of people, including an unknown murderer, would you believe it is right to kill everyone in order to "get" the guilty person?

What if you were supposedly omniscient and knew exactly who the murderer was, but chose to kill everyone instead of singling out the bad guy, even though your omnipotence would allow that? What if you kill everyone because they knew who the bad guy was and chose to not kill him themselves? I don't see how that can be seen as something to emulate or honor.

What if it's not a murderer, but someone who chose to eat shellfish?

Now, you can argue against the decision on the grounds that government has no business regulating private consensual agreements, and I'd agree.

I still understand, somewhat, the joy felt by those who don't like being meddled with by bullies using the excuse of "law". I'd love it if the supreme courtjesters declared ALL "gun control" illegal and said it was all immediately null and void (fat chance of those loudmouthed cowards doing that). I like it when the chance of being violated for living in liberty goes down, for whatever reason it does.

I still think it's silly and harmful to buy a license to do what no one else has any right to control. And I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to expand the rights violations to everyone, rather than simply ending them.

It's not that gays have a right to get marriage licenses; no one has the right to demand such, nor to claim a marriage is valid only with government approval. That's the difference between a lesser violation and liberty.


An update

I found out a bit of interesting information about my previous "rejected" column.

The woman whose outlaw carport started the whole mess was quoted in the paper as...
"Mrs. __ stressed that folks in the city should
get building permits for any construction they do."

Only, she says she never said any such thing.

Is this a case of the paper saying something that fits with their agenda, rather than with the truth? Or, did she really say that to the bullies and is now denying it?


Sunday, June 28, 2015

Grab some popcorn

When I see someone do something stupid, I usually try to bite my tongue.

After the third time of seeing them make the same mistake, that gets a lot harder. In fact, I usually end up saying something. And it is almost never appreciated.

But, I care about people. I care about their life, liberty, property, and well-being. I'm not going to aggress "for their own good", but I will say something. How they choose to respond and what they choose to do about it are none of my business.

And most people are committed to their course, no matter what. I wince and back off.

But, sometimes, with certain people, I get tempted to grab some popcorn and watch the show. You know it's going to be a re-run, but watching a train wreck you've seen several times is still captivating.

That's how it is watching statists. Especially when they believe they have come up with their "gotcha", or when they suddenly think of a justification they aren't aware has been tried (and failed) for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. I hate to see them hurt themselves, but they are so committed to self-destruction that you probably aren't going to alter their course. Warn them, then sit back and watch the show.


Saturday, June 27, 2015

Learn from others

I am willing to learn from the experience of others. I am constantly amazed at those who aren't.

Sure I will experiment and see if their advice holds up. Often it doesn't. Sometimes it does, and I find a better way.

I will try other ways, too.

But so many I see simply refuse to even try something someone else suggests. It's as if listening to someone else is a threat to their ego.

And it doesn't have to be anything important. Something as simple as the "best way" to load dishes into the dishwasher, so that more stuff fits, and actually gets clean, seems to be ego-based for some people. Listening to what others have learned from experience is a sign of weakness to some people. I don't understand that.

And, for things that are actually important, rejecting the experience of others who have gone before seems completely crazy to me.


Thursday, June 25, 2015

It's a trap!

Isn't it strange how often now being responsible means breaking the "law".

It's almost as if it's intentional.


Wednesday, June 24, 2015

"Rape culture"

If you believe in the prevalence of "rape culture", convince your least favorite friend to go around bragging about committing a rape or two and let's watch what happens to him... and see how long it takes.


Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Alcohol laws do little to protect

Alcohol laws do little to protect

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 22, 2015)

Recently there was a situation near Farwell that stirred up a lot of residents. I doubt the backlash is finished.

The reaction reminds me of my cats watching a bird through the window — lots of chattering and gnashing of teeth.

The situation involved young people, a school board member, an after-prom party, and alcohol.

Bear in mind, as far as I know, no one is claiming the adults present even knew any alcohol was on the rural premises.

I also haven't heard any credible claims the alcohol was being used irresponsibly (at least until law enforcement showed up) or causing any actual problems- all such claims I have seen are simply based on arbitrary age criteria, which is meaningless.

I'm not anti-alcohol; I'm an alcohol agnostic. Like any other substance, you can use it safely, or you can abuse it and cause yourself and others harm. Age is not a magic wand; it can't make wrong right or vice versa.

Obviously laws forbidding people below some arbitrary age (which varies around the globe) to drink alcohol won't stop them. In fact, it probably encourages them more than if the whole thing weren't imagined to be a behavior subject to other people's silly legislative opinions, mistakenly called "laws". There's always an appetite to taste the forbidden fruit, even if the fruit is spoiled. Prohibition is a powerful seasoning.

The extended infantilization of young people today also leaves them woefully unprepared to make responsible choices once they are suddenly expected to be adults upon reaching a particular birthday.

If you live in a bubble-wrapped world where you don't realize teens and alcohol will find a way to be together, regardless of your wishes, there's not much I can do for your misperceptions of reality.

If you don't want your offspring to drink alcohol, lead by example. Don't allow it on your property. Tell your kids the consequences of you finding them using it anyway. The truthful, objective consequences; not nonsense such as the various legal ramifications of being caught.

The fact that some "concerned citizen" called law enforcement just made the situation get instantly worse when the party-goers suddenly found it preferable to flee rather than remain more safely in place. That's just what such an irresponsible and uncivil action as reporting your neighbors to law enforcement always does.

Vices are not crimes, except in the imagination. Even if this were wrong, it shouldn't be turned into a law enforcement situation. It is strictly a family concern, to be handled as the families involved see fit. Very few things, if any, should ever involve laws and enforcement. To me, this is "much ado about nothing".


Hating bad guys for their actions, not for who they are

Recently Nemesis was manning a cash register when the local "police chief" came through her line. Somewhere in the small talk pleasantries he mentioned that he knows I don't like him.

Amazingly, Nemesis got it right. She told the cop I don't hate him, just his job*.

Yes. He could quit his "job" today and I wouldn't have any issue with him at all. And I doubt he would ever find himself seriously at odds with me, either. Since, as everyone does, he either lives "libertarian" in his personal life, or he is recognized as a bad guy and opens himself up to self defensive violence.

I don't believe in "authority", and that's all his "job" depends on. He is nothing but a bully as long as he holds that "job", no matter how "nice" he may be (and, apparently, he isn't really that nice).

*She also told him not to judge her by me- which I consider a good thing.


Monday, June 22, 2015

Good guys live Rightful Liberty- and so do bad guys almost all the time

Almost all people live their lives in a libertarian way.

If they didn't they'd be killed. Quickly.

It's only when they get a position of power over other people that they feel safe in being nonlibertarian/authoritarian.

That power might be a gun held on their mugging victims, or it might be a political position- but I'm making a distinction where none actually exists. Using coercion and threats to get your way is "the political method", as opposed to "the economic method" where everyone wins. "Why" you behave politically doesn't even matter.

Don't initiate force, and don't violate the private property of another.

The thing is, almost everyone already lives their personal life in a libertarian manner, and recognizes those who don't as the bad guys.

It's only when bad guys take advantage and wrap themselves in the superstition of "authority" that theft becomes "taxation", trespassing becomes "code enforcement", rape becomes "cavity search", murder becomes "officer safety", and mass murder becomes "war". I simply choose to not be superstitious. How about you?


Sunday, June 21, 2015

The truth laughs at your objections

You can laugh at it.
You can ridicule it.
You can deny it.
You can hate it.
The truth doesn't change.

The "libertarian" way of living among other people is still the only ethical way. Any other way- every other way- involves slavery. Every other way is evil.


Saturday, June 20, 2015

Scummy sheriffs

A lot of supposed liberty lovers hate cops, but support the office of sheriff. I suppose if you could find a sheriff who actually respected Rightful Liberty and stood as a guard between his bosses (you) and the bad guys who seek to violate you (freelance and professional politicians) a sheriff might be OK.


I have never lived in a place with a halfway decent sheriff. And I have lived lots of places. All the sheriffs I have had the misfortune of being around were all communistic control freaks; most were "conservative".

In an "open carry" state I was threatened by the sheriff that if he ever caught me out of my house with a gun- unless I had a permit or hunting license- he would arrest me. In violation of "state law". Obviously I ignored his threats.

In another state the sheriff refused to even consider my request for a permit to sell black powder. He wouldn't even speak to me about it or acknowledge my request. Yeah, asking for permission is slave behavior, but you know the drill, especially when suppliers demand proof you got permission.

Another place I lived had a sheriff who threw a tantrum when he didn't get his way and handcuffed some of his victims to a fence until the politicians gave in to his demands. He was celebrated as being "tough on crime".

And here, the sheriff will arrest people for "illegal weapons" and drugs at the drop of a hat, and opposes any change in the "laws" that empower him to do so, and doesn't even acknowledge that he is a bully for doing so.

They are all scum.


Thursday, June 18, 2015

Random Acts of Anarchy Day!

Don't forget Random Acts of Anarchy Day today. Do something right, without asking permission. You'll be glad you did.


Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Don't be stupid

I admit it. I'm a softie. It makes me sad when people hurt themselves. And when, over and over, they keep making the same mistakes with the same tragic results.

Or when, because of stupidity, they keep harming others- although this is more likely to make me angry.

And nothing is so stupid (and blatantly inconsistent) as supporting statism. It pains me to witness it.

It doesn't help anyone to avoid saying it is stupid, either.



Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Laws are just opinions of bullies

Laws are just opinions of bullies

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 15, 2015)

If you were sitting alone in your own home, would you seek permission to read one of your books? Or to write one? Would you be concerned with whether you are allowed to scratch an itch?

Would you wonder if you need a license to watch TV? Don’t laugh — TV licensing is a reality in Great Britain and many other places.

Might you call an inspector for a permit before you make a sandwich?

As long as you weren't violating anyone's person or private property would you feel guilty about sipping a glass of tea?

So why would you feel guilty about sticking a gun in your waistband, going out to your unregistered car, driving to a friend's house and buying some marijuana- peacefully, without first seeking someone's permission or finding out whether it's allowed?

If you'd feel bad about it, I'll bet it has to do with those things being against the law.

"Laws" are nothing but the opinions of bullies. Opinions thought of as legitimate only because of the power of those bullies to impose their opinions on everyone else through their hired guns. Sometimes their opinions match reality, such as their opinion that you shouldn't murder or commit a robbery.

Most of the time, however, their opinions don't align with reality at all, such as when they hold the opinion you should pay a yearly ransom on your house, get their permission to own and use a car, claim you can't be permitted to buy or sell certain things, or you can't be allowed to smoke anything you want. No one has the right to force their opinion as to whether you can operate a business out of your home on you, nor about what price you can negotiate for anything you are willing to sell-- including your labor.

Opinions called "laws" are always either unnecessary or downright harmful.

The only reason the harmful opinions aren't ignored even more completely than they already are is because of the prevalence of a superstition: the belief in "authority". It's equivalent to a belief in astrology, but is actually much more harmful to the individual and, by extension, to civilization.

As long as your actions don't violate the person or property of another, no one-- not one person on the planet-- has the right to stop you. It's not that you have a right to do those things, it's that the right to stop you can't exist. It's based on this myth of "authority". Even if your actions and choices offend other people, or they use the excuse of "the common good", it changes nothing. Widespread civil disobedience is long overdue.

How to be a statist

How do statists not feel horrible about themselves? Look at the awful things they condone. How can they not see themselves as bad guys?

Well, they follow a particular ritual to hide what they do: They change the name of certain evil acts so they can pretend to be moral while condoning those acts under the euphemisms while simultaneously condemning the same acts with different (honest) names.

To a statist theft is wrong, but "taxation" is OK- even though the acts are identical. And the examples are seemingly endless.

This is how otherwise good people end up supporting hideous acts and those who commit them.



Monday, June 15, 2015

Upsetting the Muslims

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Muslims get very upset when they are treated differently than other religious people. But they have to understand why. They are consciously, willingly associating with a group which encourages its more radical members to maim and murder.

I'm sorry, but I want social pressure put on people like that. I want them to be made uncomfortable for whom they choose to associate with.

Just like I want cops to be treated badly unless they turn from their gang.
Or how I'd like to see DemoCRAPublicans treated badly until they reject statism.
Bad choices deserve uncomfortable consequences.

If you associate yourself, willingly, with a group whose "members in good standing" do bad things (initiate force or violate private property) that are consistent with the "principles" of the group- even if you object that you don't do those things personally- I would like to see you made uncomfortable.

I'm not saying anyone should initiate force against you, or violate your property, but shun you and talk about you; embarrass you and pressure you to leave the evil group behind. Or cause you to loudly advocate change by rejecting- without condition- the evil practices and by transferring your discomfort to the bad guys in your group, while working to change the twisted "principles" that lead the members to do those bad things.

And, if you can't change the group, the only right choice is to abandon it and become its enemy. If that means you don't get into your "Heaven", or get your cop pension, well... some rewards are not what they appear to be.


Sunday, June 14, 2015

Unethical ethics for immoral moralists

I am honestly astonished by the contortions statists will go through when their statism is challenged.

I actually had one claim that slaves should have obeyed the "law" and been good slaves until the "law" could be changed, because there was no "law" prohibiting slavery.

How do you even respond to that?

(This was in response to Ross Ulbricht's horrifyingly unjust caging and life sentence. He was a "criminal" who got caught- he should have obeyed the "law", according to her.)



Saturday, June 13, 2015

Bless their hearts...

Tim McGraw recently showed himself to be an idiot, by taking an extreme anti-liberty position against gun ownership.

Not the first celebrity to do so- including a lot of them who ought to know better. Such as Reba McEntire, Steve Earle, and others. It's a crowded bandwagon, slippery with drool. (And I like country music.)

I mean, I can understand someone coming from the cultural desert of NYC or Chicago making fools of themselves by outing themselves as anti-liberty bigots, but a lot of the others didn't have such a backward upbringing and should have been exposed to rationality and reason. Exposure doesn't mean it'll stick.

I guess it takes a "certain kind" to become a celebrity- which is why I ain't one.

I suppose celebrities embrace anti-gun and anti-liberty positions because they imagine it makes them look enlightened. It doesn't. Not to anyone beyond the ignorami they are trying to impress, anyway.



Thursday, June 11, 2015

"You libertarians want a 'Lord of the Flies' world!"

Odd to me that the fears over "Lord of the Flies" scenarios resulting from Rightful Liberty all center around people acting like government. Killing, stealing, raping, etc. You know, living by the "political means" rather than by the "economic means".

This is why "we need government"? To protect us from people behaving like "government" employees behave?


What other fantasies do you entertain?



Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Looking for trouble

People always seem to be looking for problems that the Zero Aggression Principle, or libertarianism in general, can cause.

That seems twisted.

I've never experienced- or even seen- any problems caused by refusing to initiate force or by respecting the property of others.

Problems come when I don't live up to the ZAP or when I violate other people's property. That's the real world, not the statist world of "what if?".

You can dream up "what if"s all day long. I can make up imaginary animals, too, but I'm not going to live my life fearfully searching for them.



Tuesday, June 09, 2015

Bullying by statists will continue

Bullying by statists will continue

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 8, 2015)

If, like me, you are unconvinced that coercion, theft, and aggression are proper behaviors to organize a society around (assuming societies can be organized at all) there are a few automatic responses you will repeatedly encounter as people attempt to belittle your position. Besides the standard quip "If you don't like it, move to Somalia!" there is also "If you think taxation is wrong, stop driving on roads!"

If only it were that simple.

It isn't only about roads, though. There are a great many services provided by this enforced monopoly I am forced to pay for against my will. Services I may not want, and may never use. For the services which are wanted, in many cases, if you try to offer people a free market alternative, you will be ordered to cease and desist; facing arrest if you don't comply. Breaking the monopoly is said to be "illegal". Even in cases where free market solutions are allowed, you are forced to continue paying for the theft-funded service, too-- government schools, for example.

I believe if you pay for something-- even if forced to do so-- you have every right to use it. How can anyone believe otherwise? Since you pay for "government" roads, even if you would prefer not to do so, you have as much right to use them as the most enthusiastic fan of government coercion.

I would prefer being able to voluntarily pay the road provider I choose, instead of the one which is imposed upon me. Obviously, I would avoid roads provided by those who think it's a good idea to fill their roads with armed pirates with flashing lights, hired to accost travelers; extorting property from them by using the excuse that some arbitrary rule was violated-- but you might not. As long as you and I are given no choice in the matter, no one will know which way works better.

No one should ever be forced to pay for something they don't want and would rather not use. Nothing is so important that people should be forced to finance it, and if people do have to be forced, it's probably an inferior service anyway.

The other side of the coin is those who use a service or product should be willing to pay for doing so, or expect to be shut out.

This isn't good enough for pro-government extremists, who want to ensure there is no real choice offered. Once again liberty lovers are told by statists "If you don't like being bullied, we'll just have to agree to disagree." By which they mean the bullying will continue and intensify.


The Truth in Headlines Project

Just for fun, and just when a headline strikes me as particularly dishonestly statist, I sometimes like to re-write it to be more truthful.

Such as:
"Government files for asset forfeiture of firearms seized in raid" should be "Thieves ask themselves for permission to keep property they stole in armed robbery"

Or "U.S. thinks China is behind big data breach" needs to be "World's largest gang of bullies accuses other gang of stepping on its turf".

Feel free to join me. Just write your more truthful headline and "sign it":
"-The Truth in Headlines Project".


Monday, June 08, 2015

Extraordinary claims with zero evidence

If you were living on a planet, and a ship landed with beings on it who told you they were now the government and you were obligated to live according to their opinions, would you?

If they killed to discourage disobedience would that somehow make their claim legitimate?

So, why do people believe the same lie when it's members of their own species (supposedly) making the outlandish claim?

Their claim doesn't even make sense- it's nonsensical from every angle- so they can't prove anything. Yet, instead of laughing and defending themselves from these parasites, people let themselves be bullied.


Sunday, June 07, 2015

Being poor shouldn't be a crime

One of my earliest anti-government/pro-liberty thoughts, back when I was a kid, was the realization that government made it basically illegal to be poor. Which was sort of bad news to me, because making money wasn't high on my list of priorities.

I was thinking of all the things I wanted to do with my life which didn't really require money... until you got "laws" involved.

You couldn't "legally" just make a life for yourself on some unowned land- because if it wasn't individually owned, some government pretended to own it and would kick you off and destroy your house and all your work if they caught you living there.

Even if you had enough money to otherwise survive in town, "taxes" would increase your costs, and if you couldn't pay, you'd be jailed, again losing all you had worked for. Silly property codes often make gardens and affordable houses "illegal", and of course, transportation is a big problem.

If you don't have the money to do certain things for your kids- things beyond what is needed for a good life- they'll be kidnapped by employees of the State, claiming "neglect and abuse".

If you can't afford certain bribes ("licenses", "permits") you'll be forbidden to start a business- at least openly- to improve your circumstances. And even if you somehow manage, the theft-by-government has only just begun.

And, really, if you think about it, the list of potential "infractions" goes on and on. All due to a lack of money to keep "government" thugs off your back.

I don't resent money, or those who have a lot. I resent those who make sure to punish those who choose to not spend our lives in pursuit of money, in order to pay their bribes and extortion.


Saturday, June 06, 2015

Becoming one with your brokenness

I don't think it's necessarily a good thing.

I know people who get their identity from their damage.

Either they have a medical condition which becomes their identity- even to the point of getting tattoos commemorating it, having it as their "profile pic", and posting endless links about it- or they were the victim of a violation and it becomes their identity in the same way. It is them on some deep level.

I understand that damage can get into your mind, but is it really healthy to obsess over your victimhood or brokenness? And seemingly celebrate it?

Well, I see "patriotism" in the same light. It's like Stockholm Syndrome gone cancerous. Not only identifying with your violator, but letting your violator become your entire world. Tattooing yourself with the violator's symbols and words, flying his banners, being proud of his claim of ownership over your life and body.

It's one thing to accept past damage or current circumstances you can't change. It is quite another to celebrate it and let it become your meaning in life.


Friday, June 05, 2015

Reacting to statism

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Believe it or not, in person I really try to not be that person who has to respond to every insane statist word that comes out of someone's mouth during conversation. I try very hard to listen without immediately trying to think of a comeback, or of how to put the final nail in their mind's coffin.

Sometimes, during a pause, I just hold my tongue and think things I'd like to say, but won't. That has led to awkward pauses.

I suspect I often get that deer-in-the-headlights look on my face.

To me, saying something statist is about as reasonable as claiming that goats rule the world. Or suggesting we should all start sacrificing children to Cthulhu. (Although I've known a few children who make that idea seem less crazy.)

I sometimes wonder which is worse: the expression on my face when someone says something utterly statist, or verbally responding to them.

I suppose it depends on the individual.

For the person who is fully vested in statism, reason probably won't help. After all, they have had a lifetime of practice ignoring reason and reality in order to stay statist. For them, the discomfort of having someone silently look at them like their flesh mask just slipped a bit, exposing their insectoid self, might eventually get to them.

As I say, it isn't something I do intentionally. It's automatic- just as the look of horror would be if they actually did let their human mask slip. Something hideous was unexpectedly exposed- how am I supposed to react?

Statism is as anti-human as an insectoid alien might be- if the alien noticed humans at all. Statism sees people as food, fuel, or fertilizer. If it doesn't stun and shock you, you don't understand it.


Supporters and other Superheroes

I would really like to get at least $200 more per month in supporters. Either through Patreon or Paypal subscriptions (link to the right). I know, we'd all "like" something, but if you don't ask...

It would take a lot of financial pressure off me.

Plus my birthday is less than two weeks away. So, if you've been considering it becoming a patron or subscriber, just think of it as an early birthday gift.

Added- I discovered a bill someone else was supposedly responsible for, but which wasn't paid. I am paying it, and it's gonna be rough.

Thank you!


Thursday, June 04, 2015

Rejected, but not dejected

Well, that's a fine how-do-you-do. After not having trouble with either of the papers rejecting columns in quite a while, it happened. The owner/publisher of the State Line Tribune rejected my newest Liberty Lines submission.

He said it was "extreme"; building permits and property codes are not "anti-American" and DC politicians are not "vermin", so he couldn't publish this one. And this is coming from someone who constantly complains about the politicians in DC. However, he wants them to do more of what he thinks they should do- using the power of their hired bullies to impose their opinions (which he hopes mesh with his) on everyone else.

This illustrates exactly why "we" are in this situation: people too scared to call a spade a spade, and refusing to address the root of the problem; instead, offering SpongeBob bandaids to hide boo-boos so they don't have to face reality.

Also, he said my previous column on the matter was enough. Funny, but apparently the city council can still discuss the matter and use his newspaper as their forum, but no one who doesn't believe in their "authority" is allowed to do so. Well, his property- his choice, and he can fawn over the local vermin to his heart's content, but he shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite him. I'd stick up for him anyway.

I understand- he owns a newspaper and a large amount of his content depends on coddling and paying undue positive attention to the local political parasites, whether he really respects them or not.

No, I'm not angry. But I do believe this is important and am bothered that few of my Farwell neighbors will be able to read it. If I had the money I'd start my own local paper to tell the Liberty side of the story- every story- and focus on what real people do and only write true headlines calling the cops, politicians, and bureaucrats what they actually are. I guess it's a good thing I am so broke.

Instead of just posting the rejected column here, I changed it up slightly (to fit a different paper) and submitted it to the CNJ. It got rejected again, but for entirely different reasons. So, I resubmitted a more "generalized" version, with everything intact except the opening paragraph which was very town-specific (and not very relevent to the majority of the CNJ's readers). After the editor changed a couple of things, it was approved. You can read his edited version tomorrow, and in a month you can read the final draft I submitted to the CNJ before it was edited- if you care to see what was changed.


Wednesday, June 03, 2015

Should you live by the ZAP?

Well... I believe you should live by the Zero Aggression Principle.

After accepting there is no right to initiate force, I conclude it is wrong to do so. I "shouldn't" initiate force.

But, really, who cares?

You have no right to initiate force; my opinion of "should" or "should not" doesn't figure into it. If I see you initiating force I may try to make you believe you shouldn't have done so.

The ZAP is a successful way to live among other humans. I think it's the most successful way ever discovered.

It doesn't matter whether it is "just an idea".

Cats don't live by the ZAP, and no one expects them to. They initiate force toward other cats and toward other species. They don't have the capacity to decide they "shouldn't" do that.

Humans have that capacity. Those who fail to live by the ZAP suffer because of it. Often not as much as I'd like them to suffer, but that's not my call either.

So, "should" you live by the ZAP? I think so, but the choice is yours because you have a brain capable of choosing, and you know how I may decide to respond if you choose not to.

I hope that as time goes on, more and more people will realize the wisdom of living by the ZAP (which will make it increasingly difficult for those who choose to be thugs).


Tuesday, June 02, 2015

Finance without taxation possible

Finance without taxation possible

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 1, 2015)

I am amazed when otherwise intelligent people believe they couldn’t find a way to provide necessary infrastructure and services without committing taxation against their neighbors.

It makes me wonder how many abolitionists were accused of hating farms and cotton by those who couldn’t imagine how fields could be worked in the absence of slaves.

For anything currently financed through taxation I can think of several ways it could be financed voluntarily. If I can, you can too. The more knowledgeable you are about a subject area, the more options you should be able to find.

Don't make assumptions based on how things are done today. Really think. The current way isn't the way it has always been, nor is it the only way it could be. The time for relying on coercion and theft is past.

Think your way out of the restrictive box which has been carefully crafted to imprison your mind. It is built and maintained by those who depend on you not understanding that "authority" is a dangerous superstition, that taxation is theft, and that if you have to rob others to fund something, you'd be better off doing without. Everything good and necessary can be financed voluntarily.

I value education; I love libraries and parks; I even appreciate roads. I am not willing to rob you to pay for any of them.

Many seem to consider tax-funded things to be free. They are not. In fact, they are expensive and inferior compared to what could exist if people kept all their money and paid for what they actually want; choosing among competing providers. Without the burden of taxation you would have much more money to direct toward those things you think are important, whatever they might be. Everyone would be expected to pay for what they use, and no one forced to pay for things they don't use.

The inability, or reticence, to find ways to do things without coercion or theft is a result of having a hobbled mind; it shows a lack of critical thinking and creativity. The brain is a creative organ; able to solve problems. Use it. Don't settle for continuing to be less than fully functional.

It astounds me when people assume a privately owned and maintained road, for example, would require toll booths every few yards or so, as you switch between property owners. What is this, the twentieth century? Come on, think!

Now, picture something you value which is funded by taxing your neighbors. Then, think of ways to provide the same-- or a superior-- service or infrastructure without committing the act of taxation against anyone. It's liberating!



Aggression is the use of (or the credible threat of using) violence against a person who is not using or threatening violence against you, nor violating your property.

(Constantly, in discussions with statists, they refuse to understand what is and what isn't "aggression". Mostly because they have a statist agenda which would be interfered with by a strict understanding of what constitutes aggression. They'd be forced to face the fact that they are advocating evil, and that is uncomfortable.)


Monday, June 01, 2015

What is the point of "laws"?

Trying to look at it from the perspective of misguided people who think "laws" are necessary, or even good, I believe they would claim:

The point of laws:
To protect people and their property.
To maintain community standards.
To provide a framework for justice.

I think it is quite clear that "laws" fail on every point. They are the greatest threat to person and property- much greater than freelance threats which you can end with a gunshot.

They quite often violate "community standards"; instead imposing what a few people want to pretend are the "community standards".

And, "laws" have zero to do with justice. They are instead about revenge. If justice happens under them, it is purely by accident.

The vast majority of "laws" violate life, liberty, and property. And are set up specifically to prevent "pursuit of happiness". They give enforcers the excuse to trespass, molest, kidnap, rob, and murder, and pretend to make it wrong for you to do anything about it. I would be happier in a lawless society- and you probably would, too. I can take care of myself, and I am willing to help others do the same. I would hope "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", but I don't necessarily expect it. "Laws" get in the way of civilization.

"Laws" are worse than worthless; they are a disaster and a danger.