I have seen many pathetic excuses for anti-gun "laws" and attitudes, but one of the most pitiful is the "I don't trust myself" excuse.
I've known people who said they "shouldn't be allowed" to drive or carry a gun, because they get too angry and would hurt someone.
Seems like in this case, it isn't the car or gun that is the problem- it is the anger issues and the lack of self control to avoid aggressively acting out on that anger. It's also pretty clear to me that if a person can't be trusted, the tool they possess doesn't matter. If a person can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with a car, or a hammer, or a job, or around kids, or... well, they can't be trusted- period.
However, what I have usually found is that when one of those "untrustworthy" people actually starts carrying a gun, the self control takes root and starts to grow. Expect nothing, and that's what you'll usually get. Expect responsibility, and it has a chance to develop. The hothead either learns to control it, or they end up in "legal trouble" or dead. With dead being the preferable outcome in that case.
I'm sure not everyone would develop self control and responsibility, though. Maybe even in those hopeless cases it would be good for those people to arm themselves and let the problem solve itself. Darwinization works- it's just that, unfortunately, the irresponsible among us do sometimes take some decent people with them. Which is why I learned to avoid certain people.
.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
"Soft statists" and the irredeemable statists
I have nothing but contempt for "government" and those who support it.
Well, that's not quite true.
I have a lot of pity for most "soft statists"- the people who are just statists because no one has ever expected more of them. The ones who are what they are because it's the "culture" they grew up in, and no one ever pointed out to them how inconsistent and hypocritical it is. And how it doesn't work because it can't work- new "laws" are clear evidence of this. They can be reached, with opportunity, time, and patience.
I also have pity for elderly statists who can't seem to change a lifetime of indoctrination at this late date. They can't be reached, and do a lot of damage, but their time is running out.
My contempt is reserved for those who have been shown the nature of statism and still won't reject the evil. They've been shown a better way and still refuse to grow up. Those who look for any objection they can muster to keep stealing and committing acts of enforcement- or asking others to commit those acts of their behalf. And, yes, I realize a lot of it is grounded in cowardice- due to them being afraid to take responsibility for their own life. Or imagining horrible outcomes of Rightful Liberty while glossing over horrible outcomes of statism which are occurring all around them right now- no speculation required.
So, contempt and pity for statists. Pity for those never given the chance to reject statism, and contempt for those who have been shown better and still refuse to grow up.
.
Well, that's not quite true.
I have a lot of pity for most "soft statists"- the people who are just statists because no one has ever expected more of them. The ones who are what they are because it's the "culture" they grew up in, and no one ever pointed out to them how inconsistent and hypocritical it is. And how it doesn't work because it can't work- new "laws" are clear evidence of this. They can be reached, with opportunity, time, and patience.
I also have pity for elderly statists who can't seem to change a lifetime of indoctrination at this late date. They can't be reached, and do a lot of damage, but their time is running out.
My contempt is reserved for those who have been shown the nature of statism and still won't reject the evil. They've been shown a better way and still refuse to grow up. Those who look for any objection they can muster to keep stealing and committing acts of enforcement- or asking others to commit those acts of their behalf. And, yes, I realize a lot of it is grounded in cowardice- due to them being afraid to take responsibility for their own life. Or imagining horrible outcomes of Rightful Liberty while glossing over horrible outcomes of statism which are occurring all around them right now- no speculation required.
So, contempt and pity for statists. Pity for those never given the chance to reject statism, and contempt for those who have been shown better and still refuse to grow up.
.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Not in best interest to be disarmed
Not in best interest to be disarmed
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 26, 2015)
Once again a group of disarmed people has fallen victim to a murderer. Peaceful, friendly people attending church, while convinced by "authority" to be sitting ducks, welcomed the murderer into their midst and were gunned down. Words can't convey how evil that premeditated act was.
The blood dancing monsters of the various "gun control" groups, more honestly referred to as "mass murder cheerleaders"- and governments- have blamed the people who didn't commit the murder, and sought to violate the innocent for the hideous acts of a thug. The president lies by claiming this doesn't happen in other countries to convince people to demand to be disarmed.
The truth is an attack can come anywhere at any time. Even where you feel safe. Those attacks are more likely to be attempted- and to succeed- in places where people have been forbidden from carrying guns.
Yes, that's right. Every single "no guns" sign you see, such as at the mall here, is going to be completely ignored by anyone whose mind is made up to murder. If obeyed at all, it will only be obeyed by people who have no murderous intent. People who are already plotting to break the supreme law and commit murder won't hesitate breaking a rule forbidding guns on premises. Even if there are metal detectors at the door, the bad guy will just go in shooting rather than waiting until he is inside.
A "no guns" sign or policy only weeds out the people who might stand between a mass murder and his targets. Instead of enhancing safety, it sacrifices it on the altar of appearances. A "no guns" sign is a warning that your life doesn't matter at all to the property owners.
Anti-gun mouthpieces blame the guns. Racists blame race problems. The superstitious blame a flag. Some even blame the victims for not ignoring the rule and arming themselves anyway. The observant notice the medications the vast majority of mass murderers have been prescribed. Too few blame the murderer.
I am glad to see some people responding to this latest attack by promising if something like this is attempted again, they will shoot back. Maybe they remember Luke 22:36-- "[H]e that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Today's sword is the personal firearm. It's terrible it took this attack to inspire them to take responsibility for their own safety, but better late than never.
No one ever disarms you with your best interests in mind. Anyone wanting to disarm you, under any pretext, is your mortal enemy. If you cooperate you are only offering yourself as a sacrifice to their scheme.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 26, 2015)
Once again a group of disarmed people has fallen victim to a murderer. Peaceful, friendly people attending church, while convinced by "authority" to be sitting ducks, welcomed the murderer into their midst and were gunned down. Words can't convey how evil that premeditated act was.
The blood dancing monsters of the various "gun control" groups, more honestly referred to as "mass murder cheerleaders"- and governments- have blamed the people who didn't commit the murder, and sought to violate the innocent for the hideous acts of a thug. The president lies by claiming this doesn't happen in other countries to convince people to demand to be disarmed.
The truth is an attack can come anywhere at any time. Even where you feel safe. Those attacks are more likely to be attempted- and to succeed- in places where people have been forbidden from carrying guns.
Yes, that's right. Every single "no guns" sign you see, such as at the mall here, is going to be completely ignored by anyone whose mind is made up to murder. If obeyed at all, it will only be obeyed by people who have no murderous intent. People who are already plotting to break the supreme law and commit murder won't hesitate breaking a rule forbidding guns on premises. Even if there are metal detectors at the door, the bad guy will just go in shooting rather than waiting until he is inside.
A "no guns" sign or policy only weeds out the people who might stand between a mass murder and his targets. Instead of enhancing safety, it sacrifices it on the altar of appearances. A "no guns" sign is a warning that your life doesn't matter at all to the property owners.
Anti-gun mouthpieces blame the guns. Racists blame race problems. The superstitious blame a flag. Some even blame the victims for not ignoring the rule and arming themselves anyway. The observant notice the medications the vast majority of mass murderers have been prescribed. Too few blame the murderer.
I am glad to see some people responding to this latest attack by promising if something like this is attempted again, they will shoot back. Maybe they remember Luke 22:36-- "[H]e that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Today's sword is the personal firearm. It's terrible it took this attack to inspire them to take responsibility for their own safety, but better late than never.
No one ever disarms you with your best interests in mind. Anyone wanting to disarm you, under any pretext, is your mortal enemy. If you cooperate you are only offering yourself as a sacrifice to their scheme.
.
"Mandatory" is the deal-breaker
A while back I signed an online petition against mandatory vaccinations.
I am not "anti-vaccines"; I am anti-mandatory vaccines. And just about anything else, too.
Well, today, the "White House" staff sent a response to all the petition's signatories.
.
Here it is (feel free to skim- I did):
A Response to Your Petition on VaccinesThank you for signing this We the People petition on mandatory vaccines.The evidence about vaccines' safety and benefits is both strong and consistent -- but don't just take our word for it. We reached out to the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy -- the Nation's Doctor -- who wanted to respond to you personally on this issue.Here's what he had to say:We all want our children to be safe and healthy, and nothing is more important than that -- and the United States currently has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in its history.When it comes to laws regarding vaccines, there are two important things to keep in mind.First, states and localities determine these kinds of vaccine requirements and exemption policies. Right now, all states require children to be vaccinated against certain communicable diseases as a condition of school attendance, and there are some employers, such as health care facilities and day cares, that require vaccination to protect their employees as well as their customers (for example, hospitalized patients, people living in long-term health care facilities, and infants attending day care).Second, the science is quite clear that vaccines are vital to our fight to quell and eventually eliminate highly contagious diseases. Vaccines undergo rigorous scientific study and testing for both safety and efficacy before they are approved for use. Following licensure and use among the U.S. population, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration continue to monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.Over the years, billions of people have received vaccines, which have, in turn, saved hundreds of millions of lives in the United States and around the world. For example, prior to the development of the measles vaccine, many children died in the United States as a result of measles and many more were hospitalized each year. After the introduction of the measles vaccine, the number of infections and deaths dropped precipitously.While the vast majority of people in the United States get vaccinated, there are some communities where vaccination rates are low, and this can increase the risk for vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks. If we continue to see growing pockets of people who are not vaccinated, measles and other contagious diseases will regain a foothold in our country and spread.Many of the most contagious illnesses can be prevented thanks to vaccines -- and as a result, one of the most important things people can do to protect themselves and their children is to get vaccinated.It's also important to note that not vaccinating your children doesn't just affect your own kids. It affects your neighbors, your children's classmates, family members -- your community. Some people cannot get immunized for medical reasons (for example, due to an allergic reaction or compromised immune system), a small percentage of people won't develop immunity even though they receive a vaccine, and babies are too young for certain vaccines. These children and adults rely on the rest of us to be vaccinated in order to protect them from exposure to life-threatening illnesses. The recent death due to measles of a Washington state woman with a suppressed immune system illustrates the importance of immunizing as many people as possible to provide a high level of community protection against measles.We encourage all parents to talk to their doctor or health care professional about vaccinating their children. There are cases in which some specific children will have a medical reason to delay or not get certain vaccines, and your doctor will be able to help guide you in these matters.We all have a role to play. Vaccinations are one of the great triumphs of science and public policy, and we should make their benefits available to everyone.As the Surgeon General makes clear, "Vaccines are safe and effective ways to prevent disease and death. They are necessary. They save lives."And as the President himself said earlier this year, "There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren't reasons to not."If you're concerned about your health, the science is clear: Vaccinate yourself and your children.For more information about vaccination, please visit www.vaccines.gov.
Well, isn't that special.
Against my better judgment, I replied (not that I believe it will be read):
So basically no one on your side is smart enough to figure out that the issue isn't vaccines, it's MANDATORY vaccines.I would be opposed to mandatory food.No one has the right (and certainly not the "authority" since "authority" is nothing but a superstition) to control the body of another. It's really sad that someone you call "The Nation's Doctor" isn't smart enough to understand that. No thank you- I'll find my own doctor. One who puts healthcare over politics.
Edit- Later:
Hello,Due to the high volume of messages received at this address, the White House is unable to process the email you just sent.To contact the White House, please visit:Thank you.
So, you set up an email address, it gets "too much" email, so you ignore it all. Nice. Idiots.
Here, have a tiny slice of "liberty"
Liberty doesn't work very well in a piecemeal fashion.
You can't end the foolishness of borders until you end the foolishness of "entitlements".
And anti-gun bigotry.
And "laws" which violate the right of association.
And rules which violate private property rights- which include "anti-immigration laws".
This isn't an excuse to avoid Rightful Liberty- it is a call to abolish all statism immediately, rather than in baby steps. Because baby steps don't work well- as lingering statism always gets in the way, and seems to verify the statist claim that Liberty can't work.
It's like all the other things that don't work well when sliced up. For example, let me get out a bandsaw and slice 4 inches off the left side of my laptop to give to a needy kid, so he can have some computer. You and I both know, in that case, neither of us would have any computer.
That's why, unfortunately for the "pragmatists", liberty is always all or nothing.
.
You can't end the foolishness of borders until you end the foolishness of "entitlements".
And anti-gun bigotry.
And "laws" which violate the right of association.
And rules which violate private property rights- which include "anti-immigration laws".
This isn't an excuse to avoid Rightful Liberty- it is a call to abolish all statism immediately, rather than in baby steps. Because baby steps don't work well- as lingering statism always gets in the way, and seems to verify the statist claim that Liberty can't work.
It's like all the other things that don't work well when sliced up. For example, let me get out a bandsaw and slice 4 inches off the left side of my laptop to give to a needy kid, so he can have some computer. You and I both know, in that case, neither of us would have any computer.
That's why, unfortunately for the "pragmatists", liberty is always all or nothing.
.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Bad guys should suffer
People who do evil things- initiate force or violate private property- deserve to suffer. Right then. Sometimes they suffer at the hands of State employees. I am not opposed to that necessarily, as long as it isn't delayed, but happens during the attack, bringing it to an end.
I see depending on tax junkies to bring consequences as unnecessary and a poor substitute for justice.
When a murderer is on trial or in prison, he is probably suffering somewhat. And that is OK. But there are so many better ways- ways which don't also make the innocent suffer through the commission of "law" enforcement or theft/"taxation".
Ways where you don't end up punishing the wrong guy for something someone else did.
Ways which can't be used against political prisoners.
Ways where the collection of evildoers known as The State don't come out ahead, regardless of the verdict.
If the suffering is due to punishment- especially after testimony of government employees, in a government church (courtroom), in front of a government employee, awaiting imprisonment in a government cage (including those so-called "private prisons") then, while I agree bad guys should suffer, I can't get behind that method.
.
I see depending on tax junkies to bring consequences as unnecessary and a poor substitute for justice.
When a murderer is on trial or in prison, he is probably suffering somewhat. And that is OK. But there are so many better ways- ways which don't also make the innocent suffer through the commission of "law" enforcement or theft/"taxation".
Ways where you don't end up punishing the wrong guy for something someone else did.
Ways which can't be used against political prisoners.
Ways where the collection of evildoers known as The State don't come out ahead, regardless of the verdict.
If the suffering is due to punishment- especially after testimony of government employees, in a government church (courtroom), in front of a government employee, awaiting imprisonment in a government cage (including those so-called "private prisons") then, while I agree bad guys should suffer, I can't get behind that method.
.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Disregard for others
Total disregard for others irritates me.
I am not talking about "offending" others, but doing things that are likely to be harmful. Often intentionally.
And that applies also to actual drunk driving (not what enforcers generally find and punish as "drunk driving", but real drunk driving).
Things done because you either simply don't care what happens to other people- maybe you tell yourself they deserve it- or because you enjoy knowing people will be hurt.
Some people use folks like these as reasons they say a free society can never work. Yet, if a police state prevented this, why is it happening?
Nothing will ever make a perfect world. The innocent will always need to be defended. Bad guys will always need to be defended against. Property will always be violated. But why support a "system" where these abuses are institutionalized rather than seen for what they are?
Support for the state is also total disregard for others. It's like dumping garbage in people's living rooms on a massive scale. More damaging than any of the examples I gave above.
Polluting my life and the lives of those around me with your filthy, aggressive bullies wearing their silly State costumes, is a horrible way to behave toward others.
.
I am not talking about "offending" others, but doing things that are likely to be harmful. Often intentionally.
- Walking in front of moving cars because seeing the fear on a driver's face amuses you- as I have heard teens discussing doing for "fun".
- Breaking glass bottles where you know kids play.
- Scattering gravel, intentionally, on a concrete surface knowing it is likely to make people slip and fall.
And that applies also to actual drunk driving (not what enforcers generally find and punish as "drunk driving", but real drunk driving).
Things done because you either simply don't care what happens to other people- maybe you tell yourself they deserve it- or because you enjoy knowing people will be hurt.
Some people use folks like these as reasons they say a free society can never work. Yet, if a police state prevented this, why is it happening?
Nothing will ever make a perfect world. The innocent will always need to be defended. Bad guys will always need to be defended against. Property will always be violated. But why support a "system" where these abuses are institutionalized rather than seen for what they are?
Support for the state is also total disregard for others. It's like dumping garbage in people's living rooms on a massive scale. More damaging than any of the examples I gave above.
Polluting my life and the lives of those around me with your filthy, aggressive bullies wearing their silly State costumes, is a horrible way to behave toward others.
.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Disgusting cowards
I get really disappointed by the disingenuousness of people.
They'll say they "respect" libertarian ideas- and then show they don't even slightly "get it".
They'll confuse the Libertarian Party for libertarians, or- horrors- mistake "Constitutionalism" for libertarianism. Even worse than that are those who equate libertarian for "conservative", rather than realizing they are opposites- just as "liberal/progressive" is also the polar opposite of libertarian.
They'll claim they like libertarian ideas, but then hide from the truth of those ideas. They want a watered down version they can feel safe with. One that doesn't touch their beloved slavery and theft, and one that doesn't point out that their heroes are parasitic vermin. One that doesn't upset the status quo.
In other words, they "like" a "libertarianism" which rejects libertarianism.
They'll complain endlessly about the consequences that happen directly because of belief in "authority" and of rejecting the only possible ethical life- living in Rightful Liberty (while missing the fact that this is why what they complain about occurs)- but are too scared to actually do anything meaningful about it.
Those people make me sick.
.
They'll say they "respect" libertarian ideas- and then show they don't even slightly "get it".
They'll confuse the Libertarian Party for libertarians, or- horrors- mistake "Constitutionalism" for libertarianism. Even worse than that are those who equate libertarian for "conservative", rather than realizing they are opposites- just as "liberal/progressive" is also the polar opposite of libertarian.
They'll claim they like libertarian ideas, but then hide from the truth of those ideas. They want a watered down version they can feel safe with. One that doesn't touch their beloved slavery and theft, and one that doesn't point out that their heroes are parasitic vermin. One that doesn't upset the status quo.
In other words, they "like" a "libertarianism" which rejects libertarianism.
They'll complain endlessly about the consequences that happen directly because of belief in "authority" and of rejecting the only possible ethical life- living in Rightful Liberty (while missing the fact that this is why what they complain about occurs)- but are too scared to actually do anything meaningful about it.
Those people make me sick.
.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Cure cowardice- don't coddle it
A while back, on a Facebook post about "gun laws", someone was going off against "open carry"- saying all mass murderers "open carried" immediately before their murder spree, so it's not unreasonable for people to be fearful when seeing someone open carrying. So, open carry, according to this commenter, is "terrorizing".
Balderdash.
I am sorry some people are cowards, but why should I live my life for their comfort?
The guy got angry over my attitude and wrote "Yes Kent my three daughters are 'cowards.' How dare them or my wife get scared at people walking around in public with AR-15s. What a stupid comment"
Sorry- or not- but it's true. If his daughters or wife are scared by armed people, they are cowards. Instead of coddling (and probably feeding) their cowardice, he should do the responsible thing and encourage them to overcome their fears with knowledge and preparation.
This guy would probably not fear the people most likely to attack his loved ones while open carrying. And that's just insane.
.
Balderdash.
I am sorry some people are cowards, but why should I live my life for their comfort?
The guy got angry over my attitude and wrote "Yes Kent my three daughters are 'cowards.' How dare them or my wife get scared at people walking around in public with AR-15s. What a stupid comment"
Sorry- or not- but it's true. If his daughters or wife are scared by armed people, they are cowards. Instead of coddling (and probably feeding) their cowardice, he should do the responsible thing and encourage them to overcome their fears with knowledge and preparation.
This guy would probably not fear the people most likely to attack his loved ones while open carrying. And that's just insane.
.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Polishing a bully
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Are you sad when a rapist is killed by his intended victim? Or when a known murderer dies in a car wreck? How about when a burglar dies while stealing? No?
Then why be sad when self-important bullies and thieves who happen to wear badges or other state costumes suffer the same fate?
I have a suspicion it's the uniform. By "uniform" I am including all the trappings- the "idiot rug" haircut, badge, clothing, and attitude of entitlement. Including the "aura" of "authority" that is carefully manufactured by those who use the uniformed tools against you.
I have come to believe you could take any random bully or thief off the street- without changing his behavior in any way- give him an idiot rug, dress him in a neat uniform complete with metal trinkets and possibly ribbons, convince him he is entitled to automatic respect and obedience, and people would fall all over themselves worshiping him. And hating those who point out exactly what he really is.
Government schooling is probably largely responsible- it removes critical thinking ability from most kids and replaces it with magical thinking of a type that equates "uniform" with "OMG! He's gorgeous" or "Look at how dignified he is. He served!"
Kinderprison equals 12-plus years of indoctrination to view them as "heroes" who are "necessary for freedom" and who are "keeping you safe"; it almost guarantees that outcome in the vast majority of people who go through the system.
I see their acts for what they are: the acts of a bully who feels entitled to your gratitude as he's violating your life, liberty, and property.
That's why I can't mourn when their chickens come home to roost.
Good riddance to bad trash!.
Are you sad when a rapist is killed by his intended victim? Or when a known murderer dies in a car wreck? How about when a burglar dies while stealing? No?
Then why be sad when self-important bullies and thieves who happen to wear badges or other state costumes suffer the same fate?
I have a suspicion it's the uniform. By "uniform" I am including all the trappings- the "idiot rug" haircut, badge, clothing, and attitude of entitlement. Including the "aura" of "authority" that is carefully manufactured by those who use the uniformed tools against you.
I have come to believe you could take any random bully or thief off the street- without changing his behavior in any way- give him an idiot rug, dress him in a neat uniform complete with metal trinkets and possibly ribbons, convince him he is entitled to automatic respect and obedience, and people would fall all over themselves worshiping him. And hating those who point out exactly what he really is.
Government schooling is probably largely responsible- it removes critical thinking ability from most kids and replaces it with magical thinking of a type that equates "uniform" with "OMG! He's gorgeous" or "Look at how dignified he is. He served!"
Kinderprison equals 12-plus years of indoctrination to view them as "heroes" who are "necessary for freedom" and who are "keeping you safe"; it almost guarantees that outcome in the vast majority of people who go through the system.
I see their acts for what they are: the acts of a bully who feels entitled to your gratitude as he's violating your life, liberty, and property.
That's why I can't mourn when their chickens come home to roost.
Good riddance to bad trash!.
Rules, legitimate and otherwise
At mountainman rendezvous the one rule you can always count on is "Nothing visible in camp which wasn't invented until after 1840". The rule is so standard that it is often shortened to "Pre-1840 rules apply".
There is some leeway given for medical necessity. Modern glasses frames might be frowned upon, but no one is likely to rip them off your face and stomp them. A rendezvous is, after all, an armed society, and we all know how polite those are.
If a person is making an effort, people will not usually push the issue. Don't carry around beer in a can, but pour it into a tin cup... cover your camera with a bit of deer skin or a canvas bag... if you sleep on an air mattress, cover the thing with canvas, a wool blanket, or a buffalo robe if it can be seen through the open door of your shelter... leave the cigarettes in your lodge, smoke a clay pipe if you need to smoke... things like that. And, for goodness sake, no plastic!
Of course, some people are compelled to see what they can get away with. They'll bring something invented before 1840, but not seen in the mountains until decades later- just because it's technically permitted. Some people ignore the rules, even after being "reminded". Occasionally, the non-compliant will be kicked out of camp.
I like the rule. I know it exists before I decide to attend. If I am not willing to live by the rule, I can choose to stay home or go somewhere else.
I wouldn't impose this rule on society, saying that if you choose to stay, you must live by this rule- staying implies consent. Nor would I claim if I managed to impose the rule before you were born, being born here means you have implicitly agreed to the rule.
It's the same with other onerous rules that I didn't agree to.
This includes your Constitution, anti-gun "laws", prohibition, "taxes", etc.
I never agreed to those rules. Neither did most other people. They were imposed. They are said to apply from now on- or until the "authorities" change them. No leeway for necessity is usually given unless you are a member of "the club". Reminders are at the point of a gun.
This isn't civilized. It is the opposite of a society. Take your rules and ... well, you know the rest.
.
There is some leeway given for medical necessity. Modern glasses frames might be frowned upon, but no one is likely to rip them off your face and stomp them. A rendezvous is, after all, an armed society, and we all know how polite those are.
If a person is making an effort, people will not usually push the issue. Don't carry around beer in a can, but pour it into a tin cup... cover your camera with a bit of deer skin or a canvas bag... if you sleep on an air mattress, cover the thing with canvas, a wool blanket, or a buffalo robe if it can be seen through the open door of your shelter... leave the cigarettes in your lodge, smoke a clay pipe if you need to smoke... things like that. And, for goodness sake, no plastic!
Of course, some people are compelled to see what they can get away with. They'll bring something invented before 1840, but not seen in the mountains until decades later- just because it's technically permitted. Some people ignore the rules, even after being "reminded". Occasionally, the non-compliant will be kicked out of camp.
I like the rule. I know it exists before I decide to attend. If I am not willing to live by the rule, I can choose to stay home or go somewhere else.
I wouldn't impose this rule on society, saying that if you choose to stay, you must live by this rule- staying implies consent. Nor would I claim if I managed to impose the rule before you were born, being born here means you have implicitly agreed to the rule.
It's the same with other onerous rules that I didn't agree to.
This includes your Constitution, anti-gun "laws", prohibition, "taxes", etc.
I never agreed to those rules. Neither did most other people. They were imposed. They are said to apply from now on- or until the "authorities" change them. No leeway for necessity is usually given unless you are a member of "the club". Reminders are at the point of a gun.
This isn't civilized. It is the opposite of a society. Take your rules and ... well, you know the rest.
.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
The lie matters because of politics
The lie matters because of politics
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 19, 2015)
The rather disturbed president of the Spokane, Washington, NAACP chapter is exposed as a liar by her parents, and it makes national news and causes an uproar.
Why does her lie matter to anyone outside her club? Race only matters to racists. Worse lies are told every day by people using those lies to harm innocent people they don’t even know.
Judges, police, politicians, and bureaucrats lie in the course of the job, and people refuse to notice until it harms them, personally.
Judges lie when they instruct a jury to consider only the law and their instructions, rather than considering whether the law is a legitimate law or a power grab by the State.
Police lie and say they are all that stands between society and chaos, even while being caught on video planting evidence, shooting people in the back, kicking women in the face, and offering to forget infractions in exchange for sexual favors.
Politicians lie when they offer you a choice between different brands of slavery, but leave real liberty off the table. They lie when they make campaign promises and when they utter the words "crisis", "national security", or "for the children".
Bureaucrats lie when they make up rules and call them "laws" and say you are obligated to obey. They lie when they claim you need this or that permit or license.
All the above lie when they call themselves "public servants" while meaning to be your masters.
In light of all this lying, why is anyone making a big deal over a woman pretending to belong to a race she doesn't?
Because of politics. If you remove politics from the equation it wouldn't matter to anyone outside her personal sphere what she imagines herself to be. As it is, it only matters because silly racists have dreamed up "laws" to treat people differently based upon their "race".
The claim is that the "laws" remove the obstacles society has erected, but if you've been paying attention you know that isn't how it actually works. In the name of "social justice", anti-social injustice has been institutionalized, and for this reason an insignificant woman's racial fantasy seems to matter.
I don't claim her lie was innocent. The NAACP has the right to kick her out for her deception. Remove politics from the situation and, without the reward of special status the group seeks for themselves, there would probably have been no incentive for her to lie to them, and no one besides the club members she deceived would have ever heard her name. Then it would be very unlikely for her lie to harm anyone at all.
Support?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 19, 2015)
The rather disturbed president of the Spokane, Washington, NAACP chapter is exposed as a liar by her parents, and it makes national news and causes an uproar.
Why does her lie matter to anyone outside her club? Race only matters to racists. Worse lies are told every day by people using those lies to harm innocent people they don’t even know.
Judges, police, politicians, and bureaucrats lie in the course of the job, and people refuse to notice until it harms them, personally.
Judges lie when they instruct a jury to consider only the law and their instructions, rather than considering whether the law is a legitimate law or a power grab by the State.
Police lie and say they are all that stands between society and chaos, even while being caught on video planting evidence, shooting people in the back, kicking women in the face, and offering to forget infractions in exchange for sexual favors.
Politicians lie when they offer you a choice between different brands of slavery, but leave real liberty off the table. They lie when they make campaign promises and when they utter the words "crisis", "national security", or "for the children".
Bureaucrats lie when they make up rules and call them "laws" and say you are obligated to obey. They lie when they claim you need this or that permit or license.
All the above lie when they call themselves "public servants" while meaning to be your masters.
In light of all this lying, why is anyone making a big deal over a woman pretending to belong to a race she doesn't?
Because of politics. If you remove politics from the equation it wouldn't matter to anyone outside her personal sphere what she imagines herself to be. As it is, it only matters because silly racists have dreamed up "laws" to treat people differently based upon their "race".
The claim is that the "laws" remove the obstacles society has erected, but if you've been paying attention you know that isn't how it actually works. In the name of "social justice", anti-social injustice has been institutionalized, and for this reason an insignificant woman's racial fantasy seems to matter.
I don't claim her lie was innocent. The NAACP has the right to kick her out for her deception. Remove politics from the situation and, without the reward of special status the group seeks for themselves, there would probably have been no incentive for her to lie to them, and no one besides the club members she deceived would have ever heard her name. Then it would be very unlikely for her lie to harm anyone at all.
-
Support?
.
Discover the ZAP for yourself
(Previously posted to Patreon)
The number/concept "zero" wasn't invented, it was discovered. It had been there all along, undiscovered. Unnoticed. Without having discovered it, much of science was impossible to really do, and much of reality was impossible to understand.
So it is with Zero Aggression Principle and property rights. No one invented the concepts- they were independently discovered many times- by many, mostly anonymous, individuals- throughout history.
Without those features of reality, humans suffer needlessly. Without them, bad guys flourish and prosper. With them, civilization happens.
People may complain that "zero" is "nothing"- only an imaginary thing dreamed up inside the head of people who think about such things. You can't "see it" or touch it. Maybe. But it's still real and necessary.
So it is with the only civilized ways to interact with other people: living by the ZAP and respecting their property rights.
You can deny it, fight it, ridicule it... and it is still there. It would be there even if no one had yet discovered it.
Support?
The number/concept "zero" wasn't invented, it was discovered. It had been there all along, undiscovered. Unnoticed. Without having discovered it, much of science was impossible to really do, and much of reality was impossible to understand.
So it is with Zero Aggression Principle and property rights. No one invented the concepts- they were independently discovered many times- by many, mostly anonymous, individuals- throughout history.
Without those features of reality, humans suffer needlessly. Without them, bad guys flourish and prosper. With them, civilization happens.
People may complain that "zero" is "nothing"- only an imaginary thing dreamed up inside the head of people who think about such things. You can't "see it" or touch it. Maybe. But it's still real and necessary.
So it is with the only civilized ways to interact with other people: living by the ZAP and respecting their property rights.
You can deny it, fight it, ridicule it... and it is still there. It would be there even if no one had yet discovered it.
-
Support?
Monday, July 20, 2015
Don't doom yourself to failure
Any plan that hinges on changing other people will fail. It will lead to frustration and, quite possibly, anger.
It's why "restore the Constitution", "learn to use the law", and "remember to say these words" are hopeless fantasies for increasing liberty. It is wishful thinking bordering on magical thinking.
It's also why the ZAP and Rightful Liberty work- you are responsible for yourself. Any change needed is inside you. And since you are the only person you can change...
Perhaps by changing yourself, others will be influenced. If not, you have still changed for the better. You will see the world differently. You will have a new way of acting and reacting. You will be a better person.
.
It's why "restore the Constitution", "learn to use the law", and "remember to say these words" are hopeless fantasies for increasing liberty. It is wishful thinking bordering on magical thinking.
It's also why the ZAP and Rightful Liberty work- you are responsible for yourself. Any change needed is inside you. And since you are the only person you can change...
Perhaps by changing yourself, others will be influenced. If not, you have still changed for the better. You will see the world differently. You will have a new way of acting and reacting. You will be a better person.
.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Worthless opinions
I'm talking about mine.
Believe it or not, you don't know my opinions on most things. Because they are only opinions and don't matter. Maybe they aren't exactly worthless, but they are completely irrelevant to anyone but me.
My favorite color, the breeds of dog I dislike, what I prefer to drink... those are opinions. There is no "right" opinion on those things, nor is there a "wrong" opinion. Probably most of the people closest to me wouldn't even know my opinions on those- unless they have asked or tried to rope me into something.
Opinions are only opinions. Everyone has a lot of them.
But some things I know.
Liberty is better than slavery and that is not an opinion.
.
Believe it or not, you don't know my opinions on most things. Because they are only opinions and don't matter. Maybe they aren't exactly worthless, but they are completely irrelevant to anyone but me.
My favorite color, the breeds of dog I dislike, what I prefer to drink... those are opinions. There is no "right" opinion on those things, nor is there a "wrong" opinion. Probably most of the people closest to me wouldn't even know my opinions on those- unless they have asked or tried to rope me into something.
Opinions are only opinions. Everyone has a lot of them.
But some things I know.
Liberty is better than slavery and that is not an opinion.
.
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Two different approaches
I noticed a difference in approaches recently, between the statist approach and the voluntaryist approach when faced with the same issue.
There is a gazebo at the park near the house. It has a concrete floor, which catches water from the sprinkler system that waters the grass. The sprinkler comes on often enough to keep a puddle on the floor most of the time. The puddle grows a slimy layer on the concrete.
My daughter loves to play in the gazebo. When she was little she could never resist running through the puddle, and each and every time she did- without fail- she would slip and fall. She would get dirty and wet and be very upset about it.
So, I got in the habit of reminding her every time she was heading for the gazebo: "If you run through the water, you will probably slip and fall!" (No, she never remembered once she got there.)
Well, a few days ago she and another kid were once again heading over to run around in the gazebo- and there was a slimy puddle on the floor. I overheard her telling the kid :"Don't run through the water!"
And, then it struck me. That's the main difference between trying to control someone else, and warning someone of probable consequences. The difference between the statist approach and the Rightful Liberty approach.
.
There is a gazebo at the park near the house. It has a concrete floor, which catches water from the sprinkler system that waters the grass. The sprinkler comes on often enough to keep a puddle on the floor most of the time. The puddle grows a slimy layer on the concrete.
My daughter loves to play in the gazebo. When she was little she could never resist running through the puddle, and each and every time she did- without fail- she would slip and fall. She would get dirty and wet and be very upset about it.
So, I got in the habit of reminding her every time she was heading for the gazebo: "If you run through the water, you will probably slip and fall!" (No, she never remembered once she got there.)
Well, a few days ago she and another kid were once again heading over to run around in the gazebo- and there was a slimy puddle on the floor. I overheard her telling the kid :"Don't run through the water!"
And, then it struck me. That's the main difference between trying to control someone else, and warning someone of probable consequences. The difference between the statist approach and the Rightful Liberty approach.
.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Being nothing
Several times in my life I've encountered people who seem compelled to tell me "you're nothing".
Which is interesting, since I don't remember claiming to be "something" more than what I am- which is me. Whatever others may decide to call me is their business. You may or may not like me, but that's just how it is.
Years ago in the town where I was commonly known as "The mountainman" (or "the pet store guy", depending on who was talking to/about me) I encountered a drunk who insisted on telling me I didn't measure up. His little toe was more of a mountainman than I could ever be. He kept getting right in my face to tell me exactly what he thought of me- which, since I had never met the guy, really wasn't that important to me. His little yappy long-haired lapdog was a "real mountain dog" according to Mr. VaporBreath. I just kept saying "OK. If you say so." (As an aside, this is one of the few times I ever pulled out a gun in preparation to use in self defense- although he wasn't aware I had done so. I was almost certain he was going to attack any moment as he got angrier and angrier- but he suddenly calmed down and left.)
Online I have had people tell me I am not a "real libertarian" or "real anarchist" because I'm not shooting bullies, or sitting in jail. Or moving to Somalia.
It seems that whatever I get a reputation for, someone is just waiting to try to tell me I'm "nothing".
And, I used to care a little, but less and less all the time.
I've never claimed to be perfect. I don't suggest you follow me. I'll tell you what I think I should be doing- maybe I'll measure up... maybe I won't. But I know where I should be. And, yes, I'll probably judge your actions according to what I think is right. But why concern yourself over my approval?
You'll probably not get me into much of a battle trying to convince you I am what you say I'm not. Instead, I'll just go out there and be myself. I'll let my actions speak for me- and either prove you right or wrong.
.
Which is interesting, since I don't remember claiming to be "something" more than what I am- which is me. Whatever others may decide to call me is their business. You may or may not like me, but that's just how it is.
Years ago in the town where I was commonly known as "The mountainman" (or "the pet store guy", depending on who was talking to/about me) I encountered a drunk who insisted on telling me I didn't measure up. His little toe was more of a mountainman than I could ever be. He kept getting right in my face to tell me exactly what he thought of me- which, since I had never met the guy, really wasn't that important to me. His little yappy long-haired lapdog was a "real mountain dog" according to Mr. VaporBreath. I just kept saying "OK. If you say so." (As an aside, this is one of the few times I ever pulled out a gun in preparation to use in self defense- although he wasn't aware I had done so. I was almost certain he was going to attack any moment as he got angrier and angrier- but he suddenly calmed down and left.)
Online I have had people tell me I am not a "real libertarian" or "real anarchist" because I'm not shooting bullies, or sitting in jail. Or moving to Somalia.
It seems that whatever I get a reputation for, someone is just waiting to try to tell me I'm "nothing".
And, I used to care a little, but less and less all the time.
I've never claimed to be perfect. I don't suggest you follow me. I'll tell you what I think I should be doing- maybe I'll measure up... maybe I won't. But I know where I should be. And, yes, I'll probably judge your actions according to what I think is right. But why concern yourself over my approval?
You'll probably not get me into much of a battle trying to convince you I am what you say I'm not. Instead, I'll just go out there and be myself. I'll let my actions speak for me- and either prove you right or wrong.
.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Demanding entitlement drones
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Back around Insurrection Day (July 4) a group of veterans held the "local" Walmart hostage. Or, at least tried to.
They had wanted the Walmart employees to wear red shirts and collect money (or promote something- I forget exactly which) for their group on that Friday.
The Walmart already does a huge collection push for the Children's Miracle Network, and for whatever reason declined to add the veterans to their supported charities. As if they don't already bend over backward to accommodate and worship the military in other ways.
So, on that morning (I believe it was July 3) the veterans showed up ready to invade Walmart to make their demands and try to pressure the store managers into changing their minds.
Walmart managers met them at the door and kept them from coming in.
This was seen as a disgraceful act on the part of Walmart by some people. I heard it said that "if any group deserves [to be honored], it is veterans". Yuck.
I see veterans (in general, I know there are wonderful exceptions) as entitled whiners. They risked life and limb (and often lost both) to impose the agenda of the federal mafia on people around the globe, but want it to be called "fighting for your freedom" instead of talking about it honestly. Then, since being paid with stolen money while imposing The State on people wasn't enough, they want everyone to worship and support them for the rest of their lives.
I'm amazed and glad Walmart didn't bow under the pressure.
Of course, none of this is to be read as being a fan of Walmart. Corporations are another branch of the State and are disgusting, too.
.
Back around Insurrection Day (July 4) a group of veterans held the "local" Walmart hostage. Or, at least tried to.
They had wanted the Walmart employees to wear red shirts and collect money (or promote something- I forget exactly which) for their group on that Friday.
The Walmart already does a huge collection push for the Children's Miracle Network, and for whatever reason declined to add the veterans to their supported charities. As if they don't already bend over backward to accommodate and worship the military in other ways.
So, on that morning (I believe it was July 3) the veterans showed up ready to invade Walmart to make their demands and try to pressure the store managers into changing their minds.
Walmart managers met them at the door and kept them from coming in.
This was seen as a disgraceful act on the part of Walmart by some people. I heard it said that "if any group deserves [to be honored], it is veterans". Yuck.
I see veterans (in general, I know there are wonderful exceptions) as entitled whiners. They risked life and limb (and often lost both) to impose the agenda of the federal mafia on people around the globe, but want it to be called "fighting for your freedom" instead of talking about it honestly. Then, since being paid with stolen money while imposing The State on people wasn't enough, they want everyone to worship and support them for the rest of their lives.
I'm amazed and glad Walmart didn't bow under the pressure.
Of course, none of this is to be read as being a fan of Walmart. Corporations are another branch of the State and are disgusting, too.
.
Police culture
The police have a "culture". An uncultured culture of entitlement and brutality.
An aggressive gang culture where they cover up the evil actions of their gang "brothers" and "sisters".
A whiny culture where if they don't get the groveling respect they believe they are entitled to, they'll tell you they hope you or your loved ones get raped and robbed so you'll believe you need them- or they'll do it to you themselves.
Or kill you.
To me, cops and their culture are completely unacceptable. They are unwelcome in my presence. I can't really understand why anyone tolerates them.
Oh wait... yes I do. Indoctrination, through TV and kinderprison.
.
An aggressive gang culture where they cover up the evil actions of their gang "brothers" and "sisters".
A whiny culture where if they don't get the groveling respect they believe they are entitled to, they'll tell you they hope you or your loved ones get raped and robbed so you'll believe you need them- or they'll do it to you themselves.
Or kill you.
To me, cops and their culture are completely unacceptable. They are unwelcome in my presence. I can't really understand why anyone tolerates them.
Oh wait... yes I do. Indoctrination, through TV and kinderprison.
.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Ideas, beliefs change with growth
Ideas, beliefs change with growth
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 12, 2015)
Everyone changes their mind as they grow. Almost everything I now believe is because along the way someone, somehow, convinced me I was wrong.
Most of those changes came after a lot of figurative kicking and screaming. I didn't want to accept I could be wrong, and I liked what I believed. It was comfortable, and matched what many around me seemed to believe.
I once held many more "conservative" ideas than I now do. I used to support police and the military- in general. I used to support the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. I used to support capital punishment. I used to believe government was necessary for moral society. I used to be fine with the law treating some non-aggressive people as though they had fewer rights than others.
I also used to hold some "liberal" ideas I have since rejected. I used to believe the best way to protect the environment was for government to make up laws telling people what they could and couldn't do with their own property. I used to think government should subsidize electric cars and penalize people who drove gasoline cars. I thought littering or polluting should be a capital crime- OK, I may be slightly exaggerating on that one (but not by much). I used to support a minimum wage, and laws against child labor.
I even used to wonder if the gun ban crowd might be right; maybe guns were too dangerous for people to own and carry.
Of course, I thought I believed in freedom and I believed I was consistent. Now, it is embarrassing and painful to even remember entertaining those ideas, and agony to admit them publicly.
Sure, I always had some doubts that government was as great as many people said, and my observations seemed to indicate it wasn't just the particular person in office which was the problem, but the existence of the position itself. I also noticed the results of laws, programs, and agencies were usually the exact opposite of the purported goal. For years I clung to my comfortable beliefs in spite of these observations. Like so many, I supported freedom for things I liked, but not for things I didn't, and ignored the inconsistency.
Then I began to really think and those inconsistencies began to fall away.
There are still details people I look up to disagree with me on. I consider their points, but if they don't hold up I stand my ground.
I am more likely to be convinced by logic, reason, and consistency than by emotionalism. I'm sure more changes are to come. What convinces you to change your mind?
(One thing I was thinking about, which didn't make it into the column, is that those advocating Liberty never threatened me to change my mind. Those advocating statism of one sort or another never took any other way.)
Support?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 12, 2015)
Everyone changes their mind as they grow. Almost everything I now believe is because along the way someone, somehow, convinced me I was wrong.
Most of those changes came after a lot of figurative kicking and screaming. I didn't want to accept I could be wrong, and I liked what I believed. It was comfortable, and matched what many around me seemed to believe.
I once held many more "conservative" ideas than I now do. I used to support police and the military- in general. I used to support the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. I used to support capital punishment. I used to believe government was necessary for moral society. I used to be fine with the law treating some non-aggressive people as though they had fewer rights than others.
I also used to hold some "liberal" ideas I have since rejected. I used to believe the best way to protect the environment was for government to make up laws telling people what they could and couldn't do with their own property. I used to think government should subsidize electric cars and penalize people who drove gasoline cars. I thought littering or polluting should be a capital crime- OK, I may be slightly exaggerating on that one (but not by much). I used to support a minimum wage, and laws against child labor.
I even used to wonder if the gun ban crowd might be right; maybe guns were too dangerous for people to own and carry.
Of course, I thought I believed in freedom and I believed I was consistent. Now, it is embarrassing and painful to even remember entertaining those ideas, and agony to admit them publicly.
Sure, I always had some doubts that government was as great as many people said, and my observations seemed to indicate it wasn't just the particular person in office which was the problem, but the existence of the position itself. I also noticed the results of laws, programs, and agencies were usually the exact opposite of the purported goal. For years I clung to my comfortable beliefs in spite of these observations. Like so many, I supported freedom for things I liked, but not for things I didn't, and ignored the inconsistency.
Then I began to really think and those inconsistencies began to fall away.
There are still details people I look up to disagree with me on. I consider their points, but if they don't hold up I stand my ground.
I am more likely to be convinced by logic, reason, and consistency than by emotionalism. I'm sure more changes are to come. What convinces you to change your mind?
(One thing I was thinking about, which didn't make it into the column, is that those advocating Liberty never threatened me to change my mind. Those advocating statism of one sort or another never took any other way.)
-
Support?
.
Choices and shame and who cares?
A while back I saw where someone had said that even suggesting "homosexuality is a choice" is "homophobic".
That is crazy.
If anyone says it either never, or always, is a choice they are lying. No one knows that either way. I suspect it is sometimes genetic, beyond choice, and other times is a choice. If someone is pushing one or the other as the only truth it is because they have an agenda, and want "laws" dreamed up depending on how they want reality to be.
Someday, maybe, it will be settled as to whether it is or is not (mainly) a choice.
But who cares?
I am only ashamed of my choices if they are wrong, foolish, or stupid. I am pleased with many of my choices and ashamed of others.
And either way, choice or not, I'm not going to suggest that people be punished for, or "laws" passed against, non-aggressive choices. That would be evil.
.
That is crazy.
If anyone says it either never, or always, is a choice they are lying. No one knows that either way. I suspect it is sometimes genetic, beyond choice, and other times is a choice. If someone is pushing one or the other as the only truth it is because they have an agenda, and want "laws" dreamed up depending on how they want reality to be.
Someday, maybe, it will be settled as to whether it is or is not (mainly) a choice.
But who cares?
I am only ashamed of my choices if they are wrong, foolish, or stupid. I am pleased with many of my choices and ashamed of others.
And either way, choice or not, I'm not going to suggest that people be punished for, or "laws" passed against, non-aggressive choices. That would be evil.
.
Monday, July 13, 2015
"Don't keep harping on it"
If a newspaper or network keeps reporting on those who call themselves "government" doing the same thing over and over, but won't publish criticisms from the intended victims each and every time, isn't that favoritism?
Of course it is.
Sure, I want to know when some bully is threatening to violate me, but to keep criticisms from being heard, on the basis of it being "too repetitive", only helps those bullies get away with it. The criticisms are repetitive only because the violations are repetitive.
The bullies of "government" sometimes (in fact, almost always) keep proposing to violate you in the same way until it finally gets imposed. They keep harping on the issue until they get their way. The media rarely points out that "government" is repetitive in its schemes- but just try to publish a letter to the editor or a column addressing the potential violation each and every time it is proposed or discussed and you'll get shut off. It's like the media is hoping the memory of your rational objections will fade, and the violation will eventually be imposed without anyone speaking up.
It's like the never-ending push for anti-gun "laws". If the bullies don't get their way this month, they'll be back next month with the same "idea". They do the same with their theft proposals.
Take away the soapbox, just like the ballot box and jury box have been taken away, and you leave most people no peaceful recourse. Maybe that's what the media hopes- after all, bloodshed sells papers and attracts viewers.
.
Of course it is.
Sure, I want to know when some bully is threatening to violate me, but to keep criticisms from being heard, on the basis of it being "too repetitive", only helps those bullies get away with it. The criticisms are repetitive only because the violations are repetitive.
The bullies of "government" sometimes (in fact, almost always) keep proposing to violate you in the same way until it finally gets imposed. They keep harping on the issue until they get their way. The media rarely points out that "government" is repetitive in its schemes- but just try to publish a letter to the editor or a column addressing the potential violation each and every time it is proposed or discussed and you'll get shut off. It's like the media is hoping the memory of your rational objections will fade, and the violation will eventually be imposed without anyone speaking up.
It's like the never-ending push for anti-gun "laws". If the bullies don't get their way this month, they'll be back next month with the same "idea". They do the same with their theft proposals.
Take away the soapbox, just like the ballot box and jury box have been taken away, and you leave most people no peaceful recourse. Maybe that's what the media hopes- after all, bloodshed sells papers and attracts viewers.
.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Me vs. (some) Dogs
For those who would like to have more things to hate me for, I have a confession: I am a dog killer.
Or, I have been.
So, how can I hold dog-killing cops in contempt if I'm no better than them?
Well, I am better than them; I never killed a dog in its own territory while I was trespassing, but only at my house. And, always in defense of my property.
When I was younger I always had chickens, pheasants, quail, doves, and rabbits in my yard. In a fenced in area, or in pens and cages. I lost a lot of them to neighbors' dogs, who would run in a pack at night, come to my yard, climb over (or under) the fence, tear open the cages, and kill my animals.
That doesn't sit well with me. My animals are my responsibility to protect, and I take that seriously.
But, at first I was nice. I told the neighbors what had happened and asked them to keep their dogs out of my yard. The response I got several times: "That's your problem."
OK, so if it is my problem, I will solve it myself. And I did. One .22 hollowpoint at a time.
It was a short-term solution, as the neighbors would get a replacement as soon as "Fluffy" stopped coming home. One thing I noticed is these dogs weren't loved. Every one of them was so covered in ticks (and fleas) you couldn't see any skin on their faces- they were just an object to their owners, which made me sad even as I shot them.
The permanent solution was so simple I wish I had discovered it years earlier: Wild turkeys.
A friend gave me some 2nd generation wild turkeys her uncle had hatched out. I put them in a pen that adjoined my chicken pen- and I never lost another critter to dogs.
The turkeys were mean. When I went in their pen I had to wear a heavy coat, make sure my hat protected the back of my neck, and carry a shovel for protection. And I still got flogged. In fact, I had to reinforce the wire of the pen near the door to the chicken pen because the tom would attack the wire each time I went in to do any chicken work, and he was ripping the wire.
But I never had to shoot another dog in protection of my livestock again, and that made me happy.
Later, though, I almost shot another neighbor's dog- this time in defense of my older daughter.
She was about 4 years old, playing in the yard, when she started to scream. A neighbor's black lab had her cornered and was barking aggressively at her. I grabbed some rocks and rushed the dog pelting him and yelling. He ran and I chased him home. His owner was outside and started cussing me for chasing his dog. I told him his dog was in my yard, threatening my daughter- and to keep it out of my yard. He said he didn't believe in keeping dogs penned or chained, because it was like his child. I told him my daughter IS my child, and if his dog doesn't stay out of my yard I would shoot it. I also let him know it wasn't the first trouble I had experienced with his dog- it had ripped up a couple of deerskins I was tanning, and my patience was used up.
Somehow the guy managed to find a way to keep the dog out of my yard- or I had scared it enough it didn't come back. Later the guy was complaining to me that the painters working at the restaurant next door to his cabin had pained his dog red. I was thinking if he kept his dog home he wouldn't have had that problem either.
Notice, that neither I nor the dog owners grovelled for the state to step in and solve our problem. I wonder if it would go the same way today.
So that's my confession.
.
Or, I have been.
So, how can I hold dog-killing cops in contempt if I'm no better than them?
Well, I am better than them; I never killed a dog in its own territory while I was trespassing, but only at my house. And, always in defense of my property.
When I was younger I always had chickens, pheasants, quail, doves, and rabbits in my yard. In a fenced in area, or in pens and cages. I lost a lot of them to neighbors' dogs, who would run in a pack at night, come to my yard, climb over (or under) the fence, tear open the cages, and kill my animals.
That doesn't sit well with me. My animals are my responsibility to protect, and I take that seriously.
But, at first I was nice. I told the neighbors what had happened and asked them to keep their dogs out of my yard. The response I got several times: "That's your problem."
OK, so if it is my problem, I will solve it myself. And I did. One .22 hollowpoint at a time.
It was a short-term solution, as the neighbors would get a replacement as soon as "Fluffy" stopped coming home. One thing I noticed is these dogs weren't loved. Every one of them was so covered in ticks (and fleas) you couldn't see any skin on their faces- they were just an object to their owners, which made me sad even as I shot them.
The permanent solution was so simple I wish I had discovered it years earlier: Wild turkeys.
A friend gave me some 2nd generation wild turkeys her uncle had hatched out. I put them in a pen that adjoined my chicken pen- and I never lost another critter to dogs.
The turkeys were mean. When I went in their pen I had to wear a heavy coat, make sure my hat protected the back of my neck, and carry a shovel for protection. And I still got flogged. In fact, I had to reinforce the wire of the pen near the door to the chicken pen because the tom would attack the wire each time I went in to do any chicken work, and he was ripping the wire.
But I never had to shoot another dog in protection of my livestock again, and that made me happy.
Later, though, I almost shot another neighbor's dog- this time in defense of my older daughter.
She was about 4 years old, playing in the yard, when she started to scream. A neighbor's black lab had her cornered and was barking aggressively at her. I grabbed some rocks and rushed the dog pelting him and yelling. He ran and I chased him home. His owner was outside and started cussing me for chasing his dog. I told him his dog was in my yard, threatening my daughter- and to keep it out of my yard. He said he didn't believe in keeping dogs penned or chained, because it was like his child. I told him my daughter IS my child, and if his dog doesn't stay out of my yard I would shoot it. I also let him know it wasn't the first trouble I had experienced with his dog- it had ripped up a couple of deerskins I was tanning, and my patience was used up.
Somehow the guy managed to find a way to keep the dog out of my yard- or I had scared it enough it didn't come back. Later the guy was complaining to me that the painters working at the restaurant next door to his cabin had pained his dog red. I was thinking if he kept his dog home he wouldn't have had that problem either.
Notice, that neither I nor the dog owners grovelled for the state to step in and solve our problem. I wonder if it would go the same way today.
So that's my confession.
.
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Don't feel bad about putting bullies in their place
I never want to make people feel bad about things they didn't choose, or things they did choose which are not harming others.
I'm not saying I have never said anything racist, sexist, or mean. I have.
And I feel bad about it, and I intend to not repeat that behavior.
But I don't feel bad about calling people on the carpet for doing evil things. Not all opinions or choices are equally valid, and if your opinions or choices lead to behavior which violates the property or Rightful Liberty of another, you need to feel bad about it.
.
I'm not saying I have never said anything racist, sexist, or mean. I have.
And I feel bad about it, and I intend to not repeat that behavior.
But I don't feel bad about calling people on the carpet for doing evil things. Not all opinions or choices are equally valid, and if your opinions or choices lead to behavior which violates the property or Rightful Liberty of another, you need to feel bad about it.
.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Late!
My Clovis News Journal column will be posted late. The newspaper's site is offline due to a cyberattack/virus. I'll post the link as soon as I can.
The column is in the paper, with another of those headlines that seems completely divorced from the content of the column. Sigh...
The column is in the paper, with another of those headlines that seems completely divorced from the content of the column. Sigh...
Thursday, July 09, 2015
"Politically incorrect"? Or something more hilarious?
Most people who believe they are being "politically incorrect" are actually just being political- and are also incorrect.
And many of them feel very smug while doing so.
It's sort of funny to watch.
.
And many of them feel very smug while doing so.
It's sort of funny to watch.
.
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
The answers not offered
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I recently took another of those quizzes (probably used by NSA goons to get you to self-incriminate, but at this point, who cares?).
It was titled Can We Identify Your Age Based On Your Political Opinions? I usually just think "No. No you can't" but I took it anyway.
It missed my age by a long shot, but that's based on not being able to choose the right answers on anything.
I thought I would write the answers I would choose to the questions they ask, to be a little more accurate.
Here goes:
#1- "The rich should pay a higher tax rate than the middle class"
No, everyone should pay the same: 0%
#2- "Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified"
There's no such thing as "international law" unless it is Natural Law, and military action which defies Natural Law is never justified, but is always evil.
#3- "Gay marriage should be legal"
No one has the right to regulate marriage by "law".
#4- "Abortion should be illegal"
I don't believe in "laws" against anything. If something is wrong (an initiation of force or violation of property), stop those doing it. Yourself. There are only two types of "law"- the unnecessary and the harmful.
#5- "Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns"
Where to start? Well, no one has the right to forbid anyone from carrying any weapon, openly or concealed, regardless of the person's history of complying with "laws" or not, and without regard for where a person was born or what government bullies claim the "authority" to rob and control them.
#6- "Healthcare is the responsibility of the government"
Ummm.... no. Their only responsibility (if any) is to not be evil by preventing anyone from finding and making arrangements for whatever kind of healthcare they want. This is why the DEA, FDA, and various medicine/doctor rationing scams are abominable.
#7- "Marijuana should be legal"
Again, no one has the right to make "laws" against a plant- any plant- nor to tell you what medicines or chemicals you are allowed to put into your body.
#8- "Government regulation of businesses probably does more harm than good"
"Probably"? There's no "probably" about it. No one has the right to interfere in people's trades. Not even "for your own good". That is socialism and harms the business and the customers- and probably ends up harming the customer the most.
#9- "A country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment"
A "country" can't do anything. People do. I do think soiling your own nest is an incredibly foolish and short-sighted behavior. But "whatever it takes" could include killing off all the humans, if someone with that power decides that's what it would take. I don't litter. I pick up trash constantly. I pollute as little as I possibly can, and avoid the use of certain chemicals. And I still think "environmental laws" are counterproductive and stupid.
#10- "It is not necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values"
Nothing could be more obvious. Some of the least moral people I have ever met believe in God. And most of them support the hideous evil of "The State" with fervor. That doesn't mean that not believing in God/god/gods leads to good behavior, either. The things seem completely unrelated in my experience.
#11- "The growing number of immigrants from other countries threaten our values and customs"
Not sure who this "our" is. If your values can be threatened by the presence of people with different values, then your values are apparently worthless. No one else threatens my values. Now, maybe you could get introduced to new customs, and decide you enjoy them and would like to participate. I don't see how this can be considered a threat, either. If you don't want to whack piñatas at a kid's birthday party, don't. And, if it seems I am picking on one particular group of "immigrants" with that comment, it is only because they are the ones generally being disparaged by the borderists.
#12- "Everyone has it in their power to succeed"
Probably not. We are all born different and have different abilities and talents. Some people are more prone to success- even taking individual strengths into account. Don't erect "laws" and regulations to ensure failure in more people who might otherwise succeed.
#13- "Sometimes citizens must give up some privacy to be protected from terrorism"
If that's the case, it's a good case against lowering yourself to the status of "citizen", which is synonymous with "slave" in my mind. But, exactly how does behaving as a terrorist "protect" anyone from terrorism? Aren't you just becoming what you tell people you are protecting them from? Of course you are. I would rather risk the occasional act of "terrorism" than put up with bullies spying on my every move. Or, on the every move of my worst enemy. Not on my behalf.
#14- "Social welfare makes people too dependent on government and less accountable for themselves"
"Don't feed the wildlife. It would become dependent and lose the ability to fend for itself." How can this be true of wild animals and be not true about humans? If you get accustomed to being fed, housed, doctored, and policed, how will you ever learn to take responsibility for yourself? You won't. You'll become a domestic animal, farmed and used.
#15- "Capital punishment can sometimes be justified"
Not in my opinion. No government anywhere, ever, has been (or could be) honest enough to be trusted with the power of life or death. The "justice system" is a horrible joke, with juries routinely passing along the result the government employees desire- which is almost always some version of "guilty as charged".
The only ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge, not justice.
So, there you have it. A quiz with the right answers for me to choose, rather than the statist standard answers that assume a statist outlook.
.
I recently took another of those quizzes (probably used by NSA goons to get you to self-incriminate, but at this point, who cares?).
It was titled Can We Identify Your Age Based On Your Political Opinions? I usually just think "No. No you can't" but I took it anyway.
It missed my age by a long shot, but that's based on not being able to choose the right answers on anything.
I thought I would write the answers I would choose to the questions they ask, to be a little more accurate.
Here goes:
#1- "The rich should pay a higher tax rate than the middle class"
No, everyone should pay the same: 0%
#2- "Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified"
There's no such thing as "international law" unless it is Natural Law, and military action which defies Natural Law is never justified, but is always evil.
#3- "Gay marriage should be legal"
No one has the right to regulate marriage by "law".
#4- "Abortion should be illegal"
I don't believe in "laws" against anything. If something is wrong (an initiation of force or violation of property), stop those doing it. Yourself. There are only two types of "law"- the unnecessary and the harmful.
#5- "Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns"
Where to start? Well, no one has the right to forbid anyone from carrying any weapon, openly or concealed, regardless of the person's history of complying with "laws" or not, and without regard for where a person was born or what government bullies claim the "authority" to rob and control them.
#6- "Healthcare is the responsibility of the government"
Ummm.... no. Their only responsibility (if any) is to not be evil by preventing anyone from finding and making arrangements for whatever kind of healthcare they want. This is why the DEA, FDA, and various medicine/doctor rationing scams are abominable.
#7- "Marijuana should be legal"
Again, no one has the right to make "laws" against a plant- any plant- nor to tell you what medicines or chemicals you are allowed to put into your body.
#8- "Government regulation of businesses probably does more harm than good"
"Probably"? There's no "probably" about it. No one has the right to interfere in people's trades. Not even "for your own good". That is socialism and harms the business and the customers- and probably ends up harming the customer the most.
#9- "A country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment"
A "country" can't do anything. People do. I do think soiling your own nest is an incredibly foolish and short-sighted behavior. But "whatever it takes" could include killing off all the humans, if someone with that power decides that's what it would take. I don't litter. I pick up trash constantly. I pollute as little as I possibly can, and avoid the use of certain chemicals. And I still think "environmental laws" are counterproductive and stupid.
#10- "It is not necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values"
Nothing could be more obvious. Some of the least moral people I have ever met believe in God. And most of them support the hideous evil of "The State" with fervor. That doesn't mean that not believing in God/god/gods leads to good behavior, either. The things seem completely unrelated in my experience.
#11- "The growing number of immigrants from other countries threaten our values and customs"
Not sure who this "our" is. If your values can be threatened by the presence of people with different values, then your values are apparently worthless. No one else threatens my values. Now, maybe you could get introduced to new customs, and decide you enjoy them and would like to participate. I don't see how this can be considered a threat, either. If you don't want to whack piñatas at a kid's birthday party, don't. And, if it seems I am picking on one particular group of "immigrants" with that comment, it is only because they are the ones generally being disparaged by the borderists.
#12- "Everyone has it in their power to succeed"
Probably not. We are all born different and have different abilities and talents. Some people are more prone to success- even taking individual strengths into account. Don't erect "laws" and regulations to ensure failure in more people who might otherwise succeed.
#13- "Sometimes citizens must give up some privacy to be protected from terrorism"
If that's the case, it's a good case against lowering yourself to the status of "citizen", which is synonymous with "slave" in my mind. But, exactly how does behaving as a terrorist "protect" anyone from terrorism? Aren't you just becoming what you tell people you are protecting them from? Of course you are. I would rather risk the occasional act of "terrorism" than put up with bullies spying on my every move. Or, on the every move of my worst enemy. Not on my behalf.
#14- "Social welfare makes people too dependent on government and less accountable for themselves"
"Don't feed the wildlife. It would become dependent and lose the ability to fend for itself." How can this be true of wild animals and be not true about humans? If you get accustomed to being fed, housed, doctored, and policed, how will you ever learn to take responsibility for yourself? You won't. You'll become a domestic animal, farmed and used.
#15- "Capital punishment can sometimes be justified"
Not in my opinion. No government anywhere, ever, has been (or could be) honest enough to be trusted with the power of life or death. The "justice system" is a horrible joke, with juries routinely passing along the result the government employees desire- which is almost always some version of "guilty as charged".
The only ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge, not justice.
So, there you have it. A quiz with the right answers for me to choose, rather than the statist standard answers that assume a statist outlook.
.
Love Gov
This is a video series I recommend- from Independent Institute. It's funny and truthful.
M only quibble is when they talk about government debt putting an individual (besides the government employees who actually took on the debt) into debt. Not my debt, and not yours either.
Watch all 5 episodes. Really. Number 5 was my favorite, but they are all good.
.
M only quibble is when they talk about government debt putting an individual (besides the government employees who actually took on the debt) into debt. Not my debt, and not yours either.
Watch all 5 episodes. Really. Number 5 was my favorite, but they are all good.
.
Don't hire bad guys for something you should do
I have no interest in sending cops after anyone for anything.
If someone is doing something bad- aggression or property violation- and needs to be stopped, stop them.
Don't add to the wrong by allowing a gang to exist on theft and aggression to (supposedly) "fight" theft and aggression. That's just insane.
.
If someone is doing something bad- aggression or property violation- and needs to be stopped, stop them.
Don't add to the wrong by allowing a gang to exist on theft and aggression to (supposedly) "fight" theft and aggression. That's just insane.
.
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
City councils radically un-American
City councils radically un-American
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 5, 2015. This is the repeatedly rejected one. The version you'll see at the newspaper site is the editor's version- which really isn't much different, but some. I'll probably find a way to post- somewhere- the original version, along with the reworked one which was rejected that I will post here in its entirety in a month.)
Through observation over my adult life- and especially lately- I have come to a conclusion: city councils are the realm of the petty megalomaniac. Need proof? The publicly stated goal of one such gang in the area recently was to plot to impose "enforceable rules that all residents could be held to".
That city council's stated goal is a sad, perverted goal; harmful and radically anti-American.
It was triggered when some people didn't beg them for permission, and pay the demanded bribe (which is dishonestly called a "permit"), before improving their own property in a way which harmed absolutely no one, and in a way many others have done before.
The only rule needed doesn't have to be written: don't violate the property of others. Nor does it need to be made enforceable. Defend your own property from those who try to violate it. I'll even help.
The only real danger most property owners ever face comes from those who imagine they have the right to enforce rules to control everyone else's property... and their eager quislings. It's that dangerous, superstitious belief in "authority" again.
A legitimate rule would apply only to government employees: "You will not violate, under color of law, the choice of others as to how to use their own property, nor steal property in the name of taxation, permits, and fines".
If any city council wants to legitimize itself, it could abolish all its made-up rules and become nothing more than a social club. It could then make all the rules it wants between its members. That path leads to no glorification or rush of power, though.
Do you consider ObamaCare a problem? It can't damage your rights as badly as local busybodies. You encounter them every day, whereas the vermin in Washington DC or your state capital don't generally notice you unless you first seek them out.
Property codes are not needed. Not everything needs to be controlled. We are fast approaching the day when everything not forbidden is mandatory. And I, for one, refuse to play along.
I don't want you committing enforcement of property-violating rules against my neighbors. I don't want you enforcing your twisted notion of "the common good".
It's time to wrest control of our private property back from those who believe they have a right to make up rules which violate us to feed their communistic hunger. It's time to tell them to knock it off and go away. North Korea seems a good fit for those who lust for ever more government control over every aspect of their neighbors' lives.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 5, 2015. This is the repeatedly rejected one. The version you'll see at the newspaper site is the editor's version- which really isn't much different, but some. I'll probably find a way to post- somewhere- the original version, along with the reworked one which was rejected that I will post here in its entirety in a month.)
Through observation over my adult life- and especially lately- I have come to a conclusion: city councils are the realm of the petty megalomaniac. Need proof? The publicly stated goal of one such gang in the area recently was to plot to impose "enforceable rules that all residents could be held to".
That city council's stated goal is a sad, perverted goal; harmful and radically anti-American.
It was triggered when some people didn't beg them for permission, and pay the demanded bribe (which is dishonestly called a "permit"), before improving their own property in a way which harmed absolutely no one, and in a way many others have done before.
The only rule needed doesn't have to be written: don't violate the property of others. Nor does it need to be made enforceable. Defend your own property from those who try to violate it. I'll even help.
The only real danger most property owners ever face comes from those who imagine they have the right to enforce rules to control everyone else's property... and their eager quislings. It's that dangerous, superstitious belief in "authority" again.
A legitimate rule would apply only to government employees: "You will not violate, under color of law, the choice of others as to how to use their own property, nor steal property in the name of taxation, permits, and fines".
If any city council wants to legitimize itself, it could abolish all its made-up rules and become nothing more than a social club. It could then make all the rules it wants between its members. That path leads to no glorification or rush of power, though.
Do you consider ObamaCare a problem? It can't damage your rights as badly as local busybodies. You encounter them every day, whereas the vermin in Washington DC or your state capital don't generally notice you unless you first seek them out.
Property codes are not needed. Not everything needs to be controlled. We are fast approaching the day when everything not forbidden is mandatory. And I, for one, refuse to play along.
I don't want you committing enforcement of property-violating rules against my neighbors. I don't want you enforcing your twisted notion of "the common good".
It's time to wrest control of our private property back from those who believe they have a right to make up rules which violate us to feed their communistic hunger. It's time to tell them to knock it off and go away. North Korea seems a good fit for those who lust for ever more government control over every aspect of their neighbors' lives.
.
The government lamprey
Picture society- or even the individual human- as a fish.
"Government"- or, each and every individual with a government "job"- is a lamprey.
A devastating parasite feeding on the productive people. In no way "necessary" for the well-being of the society or individual they feed off of.
"Government" is piggybacking on civilization. It is nothing but a useless feeder, which has somehow convinced its victims that it is the one feeding and supporting them.
.
"Government"- or, each and every individual with a government "job"- is a lamprey.
You, supporting the local cop/teacher/judge/"government" employee
The consequences of your support
A devastating parasite feeding on the productive people. In no way "necessary" for the well-being of the society or individual they feed off of.
"Government" is piggybacking on civilization. It is nothing but a useless feeder, which has somehow convinced its victims that it is the one feeding and supporting them.
.
Monday, July 06, 2015
Truth will make itself known
Lysander Spooner:
Truth will always be independently discovered. Over and over again. Until it finally becomes something "everyone knows".
“If two individuals enter into a contract to commit trespass, theft, robbery or murder upon a third, the contract is unlawful and void, simply because it is a contract to violate natural justice, or men’s natural rights.” (h/t Bill Buppert)
Which is what I have been saying:
"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." (link)
I had never read this quote of Spooner's before. Yet I came up with the same principle simply by thinking about a question. I have seen the same thing happen so many times, with so many other ideas.
Truth will always be independently discovered. Over and over again. Until it finally becomes something "everyone knows".
.
Sunday, July 05, 2015
This blog is biased!
This blog is biased against slavery, theft, the superstitious belief in "authority", bullies, and anti-liberty bigots.
This blog is biased toward Rightful Liberty, responsibility, and individualism.
I never claim to be "unbiased" like some liars in the "mainstream media" do.
Every source of information is biased, as is every opinion (which seems so self evident it shouldn't need to be said) published anywhere.
If you want "unbiased" go find a sasquatch riding a unicorn and ask him. Otherwise, figure out what the bias is, and read with that in mind.
.
This blog is biased toward Rightful Liberty, responsibility, and individualism.
I never claim to be "unbiased" like some liars in the "mainstream media" do.
Every source of information is biased, as is every opinion (which seems so self evident it shouldn't need to be said) published anywhere.
If you want "unbiased" go find a sasquatch riding a unicorn and ask him. Otherwise, figure out what the bias is, and read with that in mind.
.
Saturday, July 04, 2015
Happy Liberty Porn Day!
"Independence Day", more commonly known as simply "The 4th of July", is to actual independence as porn is to an actual sexual relationship.
It is a simulated substitute for the real act. The act of shooting and blowing up tyrants and their enforcers.
Shooting off fireworks- especially "in accordance with local laws"- has nothing to do with the act of rebellion to government that "Independence Day" is supposed to commemorate. It doesn't do anything for Rightful Liberty. It is a pathetic substitute for the real thing.
Yes, fireworks are pretty. And sometimes awe inspiring. And killing tyrants and their enforcers is messy, and unpleasant, and innocent people will inevitably get killed in retaliation. "Independence Day" is a cuddly alternative to the real spirit of independence.
But I miss the spirit of people willing to send tyrants and their hired bullies, either to another corner of the globe, or to the grave.
Until or unless "Independence Day" becomes about independence, I'll think of it as "Independents' Day" instead.
.
It is a simulated substitute for the real act. The act of shooting and blowing up tyrants and their enforcers.
Shooting off fireworks- especially "in accordance with local laws"- has nothing to do with the act of rebellion to government that "Independence Day" is supposed to commemorate. It doesn't do anything for Rightful Liberty. It is a pathetic substitute for the real thing.
Yes, fireworks are pretty. And sometimes awe inspiring. And killing tyrants and their enforcers is messy, and unpleasant, and innocent people will inevitably get killed in retaliation. "Independence Day" is a cuddly alternative to the real spirit of independence.
But I miss the spirit of people willing to send tyrants and their hired bullies, either to another corner of the globe, or to the grave.
Until or unless "Independence Day" becomes about independence, I'll think of it as "Independents' Day" instead.
.
Friday, July 03, 2015
Bully
bul·ly
ˈbo͝olÄ“/
noun
1. a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
synonyms: persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, tormentor, intimidator
verbHow can anyone not see how this applies to politicians, bureaucrats, and cops? It's EXACTLY and precisely what they are and how they operate. You don't even have to clarify, change, or redefine any part of that definition- which I got directly off of Google.
1. use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
Don't be a bully. If you work for "government", please quit. You can't be a good person and hold a "government job"- even if you somehow manage to not be a bully.
.
Thursday, July 02, 2015
Theft, enforced with death threats
If there isn't an individual I can point to and say "He was killed strictly because he didn't pay a tax", does that mean "taxes" are not enforced by the threat of death?
Of course not.
The penalty for violating any "law" is always death, even if it no one has (yet) been murdered for violating each and every "law" there is. But that's simply because most people submit before it gets to the point of murder.
Make no mistake, bullies calling themselves "government" will keep escalating the violence until you comply or die. Most people comply before they die. The ones who don't get called bad names by the quislings among us, and are said to "deserve it"- and the fact that they died due to enforcement of "laws" will be covered over and ignored.
Remove the threat and how many "laws" would you obey? The threat to "arrest" me is meaningless if I can refuse to be kidnapped, and be left alone after refusing. It is only the knowledge that the vermin of the Blue Line Gang will keep escalating the situation to the point of murder that makes the threat of "arrest" a motivation.
I know the "penalty" for stepping onto the surface of the moon, unprotected by a specialized pressure suit, is also death. No one has ever suffered that fate in the whole history of human existence. Does that mean the threat is imaginary? Not at all.
Ignore reality if it makes you happy, but don't be surprised that your cries, when consequences come to call, go ignored.
.
Of course not.
The penalty for violating any "law" is always death, even if it no one has (yet) been murdered for violating each and every "law" there is. But that's simply because most people submit before it gets to the point of murder.
Make no mistake, bullies calling themselves "government" will keep escalating the violence until you comply or die. Most people comply before they die. The ones who don't get called bad names by the quislings among us, and are said to "deserve it"- and the fact that they died due to enforcement of "laws" will be covered over and ignored.
Remove the threat and how many "laws" would you obey? The threat to "arrest" me is meaningless if I can refuse to be kidnapped, and be left alone after refusing. It is only the knowledge that the vermin of the Blue Line Gang will keep escalating the situation to the point of murder that makes the threat of "arrest" a motivation.
I know the "penalty" for stepping onto the surface of the moon, unprotected by a specialized pressure suit, is also death. No one has ever suffered that fate in the whole history of human existence. Does that mean the threat is imaginary? Not at all.
Ignore reality if it makes you happy, but don't be surprised that your cries, when consequences come to call, go ignored.
.
Wednesday, July 01, 2015
Forever alone... Not
Am I alone in preferring to see the messiness of liberty rather than the enforced uniformity and conformity of tyranny?
No, I'm not.
Sometimes it seems that way, though.
It's just that those who are on the other side- the anti-liberty bigots- are so much more numerous. They probably have about the same number of loudmouths as the pro-liberty folk, but they have a much larger background chorus of sycophants and supporters.
It doesn't matter that most of those in the background chorus haven't ever considered where the things they automatically support lead. They don't want to think about it, "...and you're NOT going to make me!"
Someone once told them- or they were raised to believe- and that's all that matters. Anything to the contrary will be spat upon.
.
No, I'm not.
Sometimes it seems that way, though.
It's just that those who are on the other side- the anti-liberty bigots- are so much more numerous. They probably have about the same number of loudmouths as the pro-liberty folk, but they have a much larger background chorus of sycophants and supporters.
It doesn't matter that most of those in the background chorus haven't ever considered where the things they automatically support lead. They don't want to think about it, "...and you're NOT going to make me!"
Someone once told them- or they were raised to believe- and that's all that matters. Anything to the contrary will be spat upon.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)