Anti-liberty bigots rarely fight against the 4th and 5th Amendments like they do the 2nd. You almost never hear them claim their city is exempt from those amendments due to "home rule" or some other such nonsense.
Even Constitutionalists who make a big deal of pointing out that the Bill of Rights only applies to the Feds, when excusing local violations of gun rights, never (as far as I've seen) make a similar claim about the 4th and 5th Amendments. The rights are basic; it doesn't matter who is violating them.
Of course, in practice cities and states (including the feds) violate every amendment whenever they feel like it anyway.
That's why I prefer to stand on basic human rights, not on documents and empty promises. Again- the rights are basic; it doesn't matter who is violating them.
If one group of individuals is not within its rights to violate your rights, then no group of individuals is. No individual has that right, so grouping individuals together can't manufacture the right to violate your rights out of nothing. If you don't own a particular piece of property, you can't control what anyone does on it. And, governments NEVER own any property.
Even if you really do own a piece of property, you are not being "nice" to violate people's rights on it.
If I don't trust you to be in my presence armed, then the truth is I simply don't trust you. Not in my business; not in my home. Not near me in public, And it goes without saying if you don't trust me armed, I understand you don't trust me.
This is why I don't want cops armed. I don't trust them even unarmed, so I sure don't ever trust them armed.
.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Liberty only lost when given up
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 28, 2015)
How well do you think it would work if a bureaucrat in Washington D.C. controlled your thermostat?
If they cared to, they could check the current temperature and humidity to decide whether they would turn on your air conditioning or heating. More likely, they’d just guess by region, if they bothered doing anything about your comfort. The Southwest is supposed to be hot, so you'll get some air conditioning whether you want it or not.
You'll have to pay either way.
What about letting someone in the state capital control your comfort? They'd be closer and might understand conditions better. Right?
Or, maybe city hall should be given control. They are closer still, and know what the weather is like here right now. They aren't going to accidentally get confused if it is snowing in the mountains above Red River, believing the weather must automatically be the same at your house.
Besides, you can't really be trusted to control your own thermostat, can you? Comfort isn't the only consideration. What if you use too much electricity or gas? Could you afford the bill? Who will watch out for you?
On the other hand, you live in reality so you understand that even in a house with only two people, the comfort levels differ. Comfortable to one person is cold to another and sweltering to a third. There may even be medical issues. You will need to compromise among the residents of your house.
You can adjust your thermostat to limit the amount of energy you use. Who knows better than you what you can afford and what you can live with?
Maybe the thermostat isn't the problem. Should you allow your toilets to be flushed by remote control on a set schedule from some bureaucrat's office? How do you think that would work?
It's really no different to pretend government employees have any business controlling anything else about your life. Your medications, your food, your money, your lawn, your chickens, whom to bake a cake for, or which flag to fly- these are all your business, and your business alone.
In each of these cases, if someone else has control, you are handing your life to people who are not qualified to control anything. The only reason they are able to take away your liberty is because you, and too many of your neighbors, hand it over to them. Why on earth would you do something so foolish and self-destructive?
.
How well do you think it would work if a bureaucrat in Washington D.C. controlled your thermostat?
If they cared to, they could check the current temperature and humidity to decide whether they would turn on your air conditioning or heating. More likely, they’d just guess by region, if they bothered doing anything about your comfort. The Southwest is supposed to be hot, so you'll get some air conditioning whether you want it or not.
You'll have to pay either way.
What about letting someone in the state capital control your comfort? They'd be closer and might understand conditions better. Right?
Or, maybe city hall should be given control. They are closer still, and know what the weather is like here right now. They aren't going to accidentally get confused if it is snowing in the mountains above Red River, believing the weather must automatically be the same at your house.
Besides, you can't really be trusted to control your own thermostat, can you? Comfort isn't the only consideration. What if you use too much electricity or gas? Could you afford the bill? Who will watch out for you?
On the other hand, you live in reality so you understand that even in a house with only two people, the comfort levels differ. Comfortable to one person is cold to another and sweltering to a third. There may even be medical issues. You will need to compromise among the residents of your house.
You can adjust your thermostat to limit the amount of energy you use. Who knows better than you what you can afford and what you can live with?
Maybe the thermostat isn't the problem. Should you allow your toilets to be flushed by remote control on a set schedule from some bureaucrat's office? How do you think that would work?
It's really no different to pretend government employees have any business controlling anything else about your life. Your medications, your food, your money, your lawn, your chickens, whom to bake a cake for, or which flag to fly- these are all your business, and your business alone.
In each of these cases, if someone else has control, you are handing your life to people who are not qualified to control anything. The only reason they are able to take away your liberty is because you, and too many of your neighbors, hand it over to them. Why on earth would you do something so foolish and self-destructive?
.
If you don't trust me with a gun...
If you don't trust me with a gun, you don't trust me.
If you don't trust me, why would I trust you?
A good question, don't you think? I may print up some cards...
If you don't trust me, why would I trust you?
A good question, don't you think? I may print up some cards...
Monday, September 28, 2015
Assume the best, expect the worst
While I assume liberty, I also expect statism.
Most people are no more guilty for being statists than Pleistocene humans were guilty for being ignorant about cosmology or genetics. It's just who they are in the environment in which they live.
I even understand why they fight against the scary truth which threatens their comfortable delusions. This doesn't mean they are right, or that their statist opinions are valid. I can not pretend they are right, although I won't try to teach every person I hear repeat the familiar myths.
I'll keep speaking up, and I expect to keep being ignored, called names, ridiculed, and occasionally despised for my efforts. But I won't stop because the truth matters.
.
Most people are no more guilty for being statists than Pleistocene humans were guilty for being ignorant about cosmology or genetics. It's just who they are in the environment in which they live.
I even understand why they fight against the scary truth which threatens their comfortable delusions. This doesn't mean they are right, or that their statist opinions are valid. I can not pretend they are right, although I won't try to teach every person I hear repeat the familiar myths.
I'll keep speaking up, and I expect to keep being ignored, called names, ridiculed, and occasionally despised for my efforts. But I won't stop because the truth matters.
.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Being Popular
Back when I wrote for Examiner, a common complaint among the serious writers was the dominance (and page views/pay) of those who wrote celebrity fluff.
But you don't even have to sink that low to rise to the top. Or, at least stay off the bottom.
If I wrote a column or blog in advocacy for some religion (including statism) my writing would be much more popular and might get noticed a lot more. People like to hear that sort of thing. It reinforces their beliefs and doesn't threaten them.
That is just a bit discouraging.
It's not that I want to be Mr. Popular. but enough popularity to bring in a bit more money would be really nice. And I admit not feeling like the freak during social gatherings might be nice, too.
But I chose this path. I have only myself to blame. I can't pretend to agree with nonsense (the best I can do is keep my mouth shut), and that comes at a price. I have since realized I should have probably kept my anonymity while blogging- it would have left me more options.
On the other hand, why should I expect anyone else to stand up for liberty if I won't do it myself?
They say "freedom isn't free". They are right, but not about what the price truly is. The price is not being as popular as you might otherwise have been. It is not having the money you might otherwise have had. It probably means fewer friends.
It's still worth it.
.
But you don't even have to sink that low to rise to the top. Or, at least stay off the bottom.
If I wrote a column or blog in advocacy for some religion (including statism) my writing would be much more popular and might get noticed a lot more. People like to hear that sort of thing. It reinforces their beliefs and doesn't threaten them.
That is just a bit discouraging.
It's not that I want to be Mr. Popular. but enough popularity to bring in a bit more money would be really nice. And I admit not feeling like the freak during social gatherings might be nice, too.
But I chose this path. I have only myself to blame. I can't pretend to agree with nonsense (the best I can do is keep my mouth shut), and that comes at a price. I have since realized I should have probably kept my anonymity while blogging- it would have left me more options.
On the other hand, why should I expect anyone else to stand up for liberty if I won't do it myself?
They say "freedom isn't free". They are right, but not about what the price truly is. The price is not being as popular as you might otherwise have been. It is not having the money you might otherwise have had. It probably means fewer friends.
It's still worth it.
.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Opinions
If you can back your opinion up with facts and examples, it ceases to be "just an opinion".
If you can't back up your opinion with facts and examples, it remains "just an opinion".
Not all opinions are equally valid. Some are not valid at all.
Most opinions are neither right nor wrong. Red cars aren't better than blue cars. Chocolate isn't better than vanilla. Star Wars isn't the best movie, nor is Firefly the best TV series. My personal opinions on those matters are my opinions, and don't have any foundation in reality. No matter how strongly I believe them, and no matter how real those opinions are to me.
But the initiation of force is not your right. It's not "just an opinion". Your contrary opinions don't change the fact.
"Laws" violate people. States are harmful. Prohibition is devastating to civilization. Anti-gun policies KILL. Those are facts which can be- and have been- backed up by volumes of examples and history. You may have a differing opinion- and that's your right- but your opinion would be wrong. It is counter to reality.
If you're OK with that, then don't worry about it. Go your own way, think what you think, do what you do.
.
If you can't back up your opinion with facts and examples, it remains "just an opinion".
Not all opinions are equally valid. Some are not valid at all.
Most opinions are neither right nor wrong. Red cars aren't better than blue cars. Chocolate isn't better than vanilla. Star Wars isn't the best movie, nor is Firefly the best TV series. My personal opinions on those matters are my opinions, and don't have any foundation in reality. No matter how strongly I believe them, and no matter how real those opinions are to me.
But the initiation of force is not your right. It's not "just an opinion". Your contrary opinions don't change the fact.
"Laws" violate people. States are harmful. Prohibition is devastating to civilization. Anti-gun policies KILL. Those are facts which can be- and have been- backed up by volumes of examples and history. You may have a differing opinion- and that's your right- but your opinion would be wrong. It is counter to reality.
If you're OK with that, then don't worry about it. Go your own way, think what you think, do what you do.
.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Thinking- too much trouble?
It bothers me that people don't want to think.
Even if they come to conclusions opposite to mine, as long as they can explain why they reached that conclusion I can respect that they gave it thought.
But so many don't want to think, don't want to show their mental work, and then want to claim their opinions are just as valid as anyone else's "opinions" (which are often not actually opinions).
Why do people not like to think?
.
Even if they come to conclusions opposite to mine, as long as they can explain why they reached that conclusion I can respect that they gave it thought.
But so many don't want to think, don't want to show their mental work, and then want to claim their opinions are just as valid as anyone else's "opinions" (which are often not actually opinions).
Why do people not like to think?
.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Troublemaker neighbors
A new family has moved into the neighborhood. I see trouble on the horizon.
This family has an indeterminate number of kids- somewhere between 3 and 5. Mostly pre-teen, it appears. And the kids have no respect for property. At least, no respect for anyone else's property. I have seen them rummaging through 2 neighbors' outdoor things. Including being under one neighbor's car port- riding the exercise bike.
The kids roam wherever they feel like, doing whatever they decide to do, without any thought of property lines.
This new family also doesn't understand how the dumpster works- tossing bags of trash near the dumpster (which wasn't even near full) rather than in it. Then the bags got ripped open by dogs and the contents scattered all over another neighbor's back yard. I picked it all up for her.
My next door neighbor is much more confrontational than I. She has already said she will tell them that behavior is not going to be tolerated in this neighborhood. And I believe her.
Apparently they are buying the house. Not good news. Thankfully, most of my neighbors are very good at minding their own business, but are not going to sit by and watch our own properties violated, nor watch as these kids violate the property of others. It may get interesting.
.
This family has an indeterminate number of kids- somewhere between 3 and 5. Mostly pre-teen, it appears. And the kids have no respect for property. At least, no respect for anyone else's property. I have seen them rummaging through 2 neighbors' outdoor things. Including being under one neighbor's car port- riding the exercise bike.
The kids roam wherever they feel like, doing whatever they decide to do, without any thought of property lines.
This new family also doesn't understand how the dumpster works- tossing bags of trash near the dumpster (which wasn't even near full) rather than in it. Then the bags got ripped open by dogs and the contents scattered all over another neighbor's back yard. I picked it all up for her.
My next door neighbor is much more confrontational than I. She has already said she will tell them that behavior is not going to be tolerated in this neighborhood. And I believe her.
Apparently they are buying the house. Not good news. Thankfully, most of my neighbors are very good at minding their own business, but are not going to sit by and watch our own properties violated, nor watch as these kids violate the property of others. It may get interesting.
.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Good, bad depend on cooperation
Good, bad depend on cooperation
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 21, 2015)
Through years of observing people interacting, I have noticed something: People are better and more cooperative than they are given credit.
By “better” I mean less likely to intentionally harm others, and more likely to help; even strangers.
Yet you and I are fed a constant stream of bad characters who are the exception. The exceptions get noticed precisely because they are exceptions. People tend to not notice what is most common.
Even truly bad guys are only evil part-time. No one could get away with violating everyone they encounter. Regardless of how safe they might believe their special case makes them, someone would put an end to them sooner or later. Probably sooner than later. That's the way it is, and the way it should be. This truth is no threat to decent people, and keeps most bad guys somewhat constrained.
Then you have the cooperative nature of humans.
Most people want to get along. Those who believe people won't try to get along are ignoring the majority of life and focusing on the exceptions.
Cooperation is practically universal, but it is a double-edged sword. When you think of cooperation, you probably think of cooperation's light side. You imagine people joining together to repair a neighbor's damaged house, or pitching in to get a desperately ill kid the medical care she needs. This is healthy cooperation, and it is wonderful.
However, cooperation also has a dark side. Much evil depends on the cooperative nature of people, perverted. Gangs wouldn't cause trouble, and wars of aggression couldn't happen, without the cooperation of large numbers of people joining together to violate others on a massive scale. It's not only the bad guys who cooperate in unhealthy ways, but normal people, too. No dictatorship could stand without the victims cooperating with the majority of the tyrant's commands. Humans are highly cooperative, even when it isn't in their own interest.
Cooperation isn't the problem; using it badly is. Don't cooperate to violate person or property, but only to build up others and protect people and property. Don't cover for those who cooperate with the wrong things.
I try to cooperate for good, while being prepared to encounter those who won't. I have picked up hitchhikers and helped stranded strangers. I have given money to people I knew were in need- and some whose needs I suspected money couldn't fill. I don't regret even the times it didn't go exactly to plan. For the most part, people are amazing. Now, if they would only see where they are being inconsistent and self destructive, and understand when to cooperate, and when they shouldn't, they would be even better.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 21, 2015)
Through years of observing people interacting, I have noticed something: People are better and more cooperative than they are given credit.
By “better” I mean less likely to intentionally harm others, and more likely to help; even strangers.
Yet you and I are fed a constant stream of bad characters who are the exception. The exceptions get noticed precisely because they are exceptions. People tend to not notice what is most common.
Even truly bad guys are only evil part-time. No one could get away with violating everyone they encounter. Regardless of how safe they might believe their special case makes them, someone would put an end to them sooner or later. Probably sooner than later. That's the way it is, and the way it should be. This truth is no threat to decent people, and keeps most bad guys somewhat constrained.
Then you have the cooperative nature of humans.
Most people want to get along. Those who believe people won't try to get along are ignoring the majority of life and focusing on the exceptions.
Cooperation is practically universal, but it is a double-edged sword. When you think of cooperation, you probably think of cooperation's light side. You imagine people joining together to repair a neighbor's damaged house, or pitching in to get a desperately ill kid the medical care she needs. This is healthy cooperation, and it is wonderful.
However, cooperation also has a dark side. Much evil depends on the cooperative nature of people, perverted. Gangs wouldn't cause trouble, and wars of aggression couldn't happen, without the cooperation of large numbers of people joining together to violate others on a massive scale. It's not only the bad guys who cooperate in unhealthy ways, but normal people, too. No dictatorship could stand without the victims cooperating with the majority of the tyrant's commands. Humans are highly cooperative, even when it isn't in their own interest.
Cooperation isn't the problem; using it badly is. Don't cooperate to violate person or property, but only to build up others and protect people and property. Don't cover for those who cooperate with the wrong things.
I try to cooperate for good, while being prepared to encounter those who won't. I have picked up hitchhikers and helped stranded strangers. I have given money to people I knew were in need- and some whose needs I suspected money couldn't fill. I don't regret even the times it didn't go exactly to plan. For the most part, people are amazing. Now, if they would only see where they are being inconsistent and self destructive, and understand when to cooperate, and when they shouldn't, they would be even better.
.
Making an issue of Jenner
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Someone recently shared a silly "conservative" meme which included a picture of Caitlyn Jenner, saying this is a woman only in "Liberal America".
I have never really commented about the Jenner gender issue because I can't see any relevance to my life whatsoever. I'm not seeking a sexual relationship with Jenner. And if not, how could it affect me?
I feel the same with Chelsea Manning for that matter.
I don't even know her. Or him. Or whatever. We'll never meet.
But, it made me think. What exactly is a woman? Are we talking about chromosomes? In that case, you would be right to say Jenner is not a woman. A DNA sample would clearly indicate "male".
Are you talking about morphological features- body shape? Then maybe Jenner is now a woman by that standard. Considering the wide variability of body shapes, maybe some DNA women aren't "really" women.
Are you talking about how Jenner thinks of herself/himself? Let Jenner think of Jenner however Jenner wants to think of Jenner. It's not your concern, and only a jerk would insist on making an issue of it in person. I constantly encounter people who think of themselves as ethical or smart, when the evidence is quite clear they aren't. Unless there is some specific reason it needs to be refuted, why bother?
Body modification is very popular these days- tattoos, piercings, inserts, etc. Maybe this is a special type of body modification. Less shocking than some, to my way of thinking. How does it harm you?
On the other hand, the body is the lowest layer of what "we" wrap ourselves in. In that case it is similar to clothing or a uniform. We constantly identify people by their clothing or uniform. Perhaps people are uncomfortable with the body being changed like a suit of clothes.
It's not for me, but why would I concern myself with what others do?
So, the reason I haven't made an issue of Jenner's transformation before now is that it doesn't matter one way or the other. If Jenner is happier now, good for her.
.
Someone recently shared a silly "conservative" meme which included a picture of Caitlyn Jenner, saying this is a woman only in "Liberal America".
I have never really commented about the Jenner gender issue because I can't see any relevance to my life whatsoever. I'm not seeking a sexual relationship with Jenner. And if not, how could it affect me?
I feel the same with Chelsea Manning for that matter.
I don't even know her. Or him. Or whatever. We'll never meet.
But, it made me think. What exactly is a woman? Are we talking about chromosomes? In that case, you would be right to say Jenner is not a woman. A DNA sample would clearly indicate "male".
Are you talking about morphological features- body shape? Then maybe Jenner is now a woman by that standard. Considering the wide variability of body shapes, maybe some DNA women aren't "really" women.
Are you talking about how Jenner thinks of herself/himself? Let Jenner think of Jenner however Jenner wants to think of Jenner. It's not your concern, and only a jerk would insist on making an issue of it in person. I constantly encounter people who think of themselves as ethical or smart, when the evidence is quite clear they aren't. Unless there is some specific reason it needs to be refuted, why bother?
Body modification is very popular these days- tattoos, piercings, inserts, etc. Maybe this is a special type of body modification. Less shocking than some, to my way of thinking. How does it harm you?
On the other hand, the body is the lowest layer of what "we" wrap ourselves in. In that case it is similar to clothing or a uniform. We constantly identify people by their clothing or uniform. Perhaps people are uncomfortable with the body being changed like a suit of clothes.
It's not for me, but why would I concern myself with what others do?
So, the reason I haven't made an issue of Jenner's transformation before now is that it doesn't matter one way or the other. If Jenner is happier now, good for her.
.
The situation
Someone I met a while ago mentioned something that has really stuck with me. They said most people who hold non-libertarian views aren't very good at explaining what they do believe, or any principles their beliefs might be based upon.
She was right.
My view of the situation is more simplistic:
She was right.
My view of the situation is more simplistic:
 |
| The libertarian point. The statist response. |
Monday, September 21, 2015
"Legalize"? No need. Just stop illegalizing.
All the words used to describe making something which was once made "illegal" legal again miss the mark for me.
"Legalize", "decriminalize"... eh. I don't care for the words because they seem to carry the idea that "law" is a real thing.
I would rather see things completely removed from the province of "law", where they should never have been shoved in the first place.
That "-ize" suffix seems to imply a certain made-upness. If something isn't really random, you can make it seem random by "randomizing" it. So, if something has been deemed "illegal" you can give it the appearance of "legality" by "legalizing" it. But, the "law" was the bizarre act, not removing the "law".
That way of speaking seems to make the artificial condition- the propped up state- become the foundation which anchors the discussion. It makes the natural condition seem like the unnatural one. It is putting the illusion above reality; the lie above the truth.
The "law" is the illusion. The made up condition. If something isn't really wrong you can make it appear so (to some people) by making up a rule. You have "illegalized" it, in spite of reality and ethics. At least the word "criminalize" takes this into account, although most people don't seem to notice its artificiality.
I think I will strive to avoid talk of "legalizing" or "decriminalizing" and try to speak with the assumption of liberty.
.
"Legalize", "decriminalize"... eh. I don't care for the words because they seem to carry the idea that "law" is a real thing.
I would rather see things completely removed from the province of "law", where they should never have been shoved in the first place.
That "-ize" suffix seems to imply a certain made-upness. If something isn't really random, you can make it seem random by "randomizing" it. So, if something has been deemed "illegal" you can give it the appearance of "legality" by "legalizing" it. But, the "law" was the bizarre act, not removing the "law".
That way of speaking seems to make the artificial condition- the propped up state- become the foundation which anchors the discussion. It makes the natural condition seem like the unnatural one. It is putting the illusion above reality; the lie above the truth.
The "law" is the illusion. The made up condition. If something isn't really wrong you can make it appear so (to some people) by making up a rule. You have "illegalized" it, in spite of reality and ethics. At least the word "criminalize" takes this into account, although most people don't seem to notice its artificiality.
I think I will strive to avoid talk of "legalizing" or "decriminalizing" and try to speak with the assumption of liberty.
.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Oh, the contradictions
I'm libertarian.
According to characterizations I have been subjected to, this means I must be a young, old rich white "bleeding heart liberal", knuckle-dragging Neanderthal "conservative" male who is idealistic, Utopian, Dystopian, pessimistic, too trusting and paranoid, and so poor I am reduced to living in my mom's basement.
Even though my parents have no basement (I do have a cellar at my house, though. Tornadoes and such. But it's not for living in.)
At least, that is how statists see it. Statists are crazy.
.
According to characterizations I have been subjected to, this means I must be a young, old rich white "bleeding heart liberal", knuckle-dragging Neanderthal "conservative" male who is idealistic, Utopian, Dystopian, pessimistic, too trusting and paranoid, and so poor I am reduced to living in my mom's basement.
Even though my parents have no basement (I do have a cellar at my house, though. Tornadoes and such. But it's not for living in.)
At least, that is how statists see it. Statists are crazy.
.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Dull 'Hawk-isms 2
More things I have recently posted as Facebook statuses:
- If your crops are being devoured by locusts, and withering from lack of rain, and your solution is to change your socks, you may be a voter.
- Stating that your premise is not falsifiable isn't a compliment.
- People get confused about bullies.
Some believe that bullies are "authority" you believe in if they threaten you into compliance.
Some people are silly.
- There is no ethical difference between the person who ridicules the statement that taxation is theft and the person who ridicules the statement that slavery is wrong.
- The Patriot's Day in April is in celebration of liberty.
The "Patriot's" Day in September is in celebration of government.
Same name, opposite purposes.
- "Why do you pay taxes if you don't believe in authority?"
Hypothetically speaking... Because I believe in bullies who will kidnap me if I don't comply with their mugging, and will murder me if I resist their efforts to kidnap me. It has nothing to do with "authority"- it's simple bullying. A mugging.
"Authority" isn't a real thing. It is a mental problem in those who believe in "authority".
- Personally, I am glad actions have consequences. If they didn't, no one would ever learn to behave.
And, since actions have consequences whether I like it or not, I might as well like it.
- Those who say that the phrase "taxation equals slavery" belittles the plight of those who have suffered chattel slavery are missing the point.
Yes, chattel slavery is worse.
However, that doesn't diminish the evil of "taxation".
Murder is worse than attempted murder, but that does nothing to excuse attempted murder.
Plus, once you excuse one form of slavery (or other violation of person or property) on the basis of it not being "as bad as" another form, you have left the high ground and are wallowing in the sewer. You are leaving wiggle room for those who want to do evil things to others without feeling bad about it.
- Sometimes I wish I could photograph my face when I read certain status updates.
Those which are in ALL CAPS and have "creative grammar" and "spelling" to the point I can't even figure out what they are ranting about.
Sometimes I suspect they might be saying something I'd agree with- but so poorly I can't be sure. These make me sad.
The apparent statist rants which fit the above make me happy, since it confirms my bias against statists by confirming my suspicions that statists are statists precisely because they are stupid.
.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
They don't work for me.
(Previously posted to Patreon)
"Government works for us."
You, maybe. Not me.
If they did, I would fire them all immediately. They don't work for me.
I would never hire someone to do a "job" I don't want done. They don't work for me.
I no more believe "government" works for me than I believe the Sicilian mafia or any random carjacker works for me. Even if they use things they stole from me to continue their career, they don't work for me.
The mafia might use money stolen from me to burn my competition to the ground, and that might benefit me. But they don't work for me.
The carjacker may shoot some guy I hate, but he doesn't work for me.
So, don't include me in your "us" when you claim the "government" works for us. They don't work for me.
And, if you ever try to implicate me by saying "We are the government", I will be sorely tempted to violate the ZAP and punch you in the nose. That's about the nastiest insult I can imagine.
.
"Government works for us."
You, maybe. Not me.
If they did, I would fire them all immediately. They don't work for me.
I would never hire someone to do a "job" I don't want done. They don't work for me.
I no more believe "government" works for me than I believe the Sicilian mafia or any random carjacker works for me. Even if they use things they stole from me to continue their career, they don't work for me.
The mafia might use money stolen from me to burn my competition to the ground, and that might benefit me. But they don't work for me.
The carjacker may shoot some guy I hate, but he doesn't work for me.
So, don't include me in your "us" when you claim the "government" works for us. They don't work for me.
And, if you ever try to implicate me by saying "We are the government", I will be sorely tempted to violate the ZAP and punch you in the nose. That's about the nastiest insult I can imagine.
.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
The "immigration" disconnect
(Previously posted to Patreon)
If you pour water down an animal's burrow, do you get angry when the animal flees- and runs across your foot?
If so, I would say you are not too bright.
In the same way, if you make someone's home territory unlivable do you react with anger when refugees come pouring out and end up in your vicinity?
This is the situation I see with "immigration".
Through the Middle East wars for oil (excuse me- against Islamists), and the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, US policy (and invasion) has made people's homes unlivable, and they sensibly flee, looking for somewhere else to live. If this angers you, then be angry at those driving the people out of their homes, not the people trying to survive in the face of bad situations.
No, you aren't causing the problem. Those who claim to be acting on your behalf are. Using money stolen from you. Sometimes with your approval. Repudiate them and their acts- loudly and repeatedly. Don't let anyone believe you support the situations that cause the problem in any way. Don't encourage the bullies to make America so bad that the migrants will decide to leave- because that is the end result of closing the "borders", endless war, and prohibition. The result will not be solved until you end the cause.
.
If you pour water down an animal's burrow, do you get angry when the animal flees- and runs across your foot?
If so, I would say you are not too bright.
In the same way, if you make someone's home territory unlivable do you react with anger when refugees come pouring out and end up in your vicinity?
This is the situation I see with "immigration".
Through the Middle East wars for oil (excuse me- against Islamists), and the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, US policy (and invasion) has made people's homes unlivable, and they sensibly flee, looking for somewhere else to live. If this angers you, then be angry at those driving the people out of their homes, not the people trying to survive in the face of bad situations.
No, you aren't causing the problem. Those who claim to be acting on your behalf are. Using money stolen from you. Sometimes with your approval. Repudiate them and their acts- loudly and repeatedly. Don't let anyone believe you support the situations that cause the problem in any way. Don't encourage the bullies to make America so bad that the migrants will decide to leave- because that is the end result of closing the "borders", endless war, and prohibition. The result will not be solved until you end the cause.
.
Death in "no guns" zones
When I see a "no guns" sign, I interpret it to mean "We hope you die!"
Or, at the least, "Your life means nothing to us".
More death, in yet another "gun free zone", makes me want to print up new cards to hand out any time I enter one of these Free For the Killing zones. Instead of a card saying I won't spend money with them, maybe one with a different message would be appropriate:
I am happy to report that our little local grocery store got rid of its "no guns" sign several months ago- so I have started going there much more often.
.
Or, at the least, "Your life means nothing to us".
More death, in yet another "gun free zone", makes me want to print up new cards to hand out any time I enter one of these Free For the Killing zones. Instead of a card saying I won't spend money with them, maybe one with a different message would be appropriate:
By forbidding guns to your customers you prohibit their best chance of surviving any attack with the least chance of being harmed. By this act YOU are accepting liability for my safety in your business, and will be held personally accountable if any harm comes.
I am happy to report that our little local grocery store got rid of its "no guns" sign several months ago- so I have started going there much more often.
.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Government less honest thieves
Government less honest thieves
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 14, 2015)
What do you want badly enough you are willing to steal to acquire, and kill those who resist your theft?
For some people it is a smart phone, a pair of expensive athletic shoes, money, or a car.
For others, it’s a fighter jet, a social net, public schools, safety, or something else they really want, but can’t personally afford. Or at least can’t afford in the only way they can imagine buying them.
Some apparently believe there’s a difference.
Perhaps there is a difference, after all.
Those in the first group, who are willing to steal shoes and phones, and kill those who resist, are generally willing to take all the risks themselves. They rarely pretend to be committing their acts for anyone's benefit but their own. They don't pretend you owe them gratitude after they rob you. They never point to an imaginary social contract as justification for their acts. They don't generally claim your "contribution" needs to be repeated on a yearly basis. They often expect to face resistance, and don't generally find much sympathy when they get shot for their efforts. Of the two, they are the more honest thieves.
The other group, those who tax, claim to be acting out of generosity, or to be protecting you from someone worse. Their most bizarre claim of all: they claim "authority" to take your property to hire a gang to protect your property.
Yet, thieves they are; backing their theft with the threat of deadly force. If you refuse to comply, the taxers will continue to escalate the force they use until, at some point, unless you give in before then, they will send an armed gang to take you into custody to be caged, and kill you if you resist. Yet they claim "taxation is voluntary".
I am by no means opposed to everything "tax" money is spent on. I am opposed to not giving people a real choice. "Move to Somalia if you don't like it" doesn't count as choice.
You can't be generous with other people's money, but only with your own. If you pretend to protect someone by doing anything they feel the need to be protected from, your claims are empty.
If you want something you can't afford, invite others to join you in pooling resources to finance it. If you can't get enough people to help you, consider it a clear message that what you want isn't important to enough others, and move on with your life. Or start trying to convince more people why they should want what you want, and to be willing to chip in to get it.
Anything less is hilariously hypocritical.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 14, 2015)
What do you want badly enough you are willing to steal to acquire, and kill those who resist your theft?
For some people it is a smart phone, a pair of expensive athletic shoes, money, or a car.
For others, it’s a fighter jet, a social net, public schools, safety, or something else they really want, but can’t personally afford. Or at least can’t afford in the only way they can imagine buying them.
Some apparently believe there’s a difference.
Perhaps there is a difference, after all.
Those in the first group, who are willing to steal shoes and phones, and kill those who resist, are generally willing to take all the risks themselves. They rarely pretend to be committing their acts for anyone's benefit but their own. They don't pretend you owe them gratitude after they rob you. They never point to an imaginary social contract as justification for their acts. They don't generally claim your "contribution" needs to be repeated on a yearly basis. They often expect to face resistance, and don't generally find much sympathy when they get shot for their efforts. Of the two, they are the more honest thieves.
The other group, those who tax, claim to be acting out of generosity, or to be protecting you from someone worse. Their most bizarre claim of all: they claim "authority" to take your property to hire a gang to protect your property.
Yet, thieves they are; backing their theft with the threat of deadly force. If you refuse to comply, the taxers will continue to escalate the force they use until, at some point, unless you give in before then, they will send an armed gang to take you into custody to be caged, and kill you if you resist. Yet they claim "taxation is voluntary".
I am by no means opposed to everything "tax" money is spent on. I am opposed to not giving people a real choice. "Move to Somalia if you don't like it" doesn't count as choice.
You can't be generous with other people's money, but only with your own. If you pretend to protect someone by doing anything they feel the need to be protected from, your claims are empty.
If you want something you can't afford, invite others to join you in pooling resources to finance it. If you can't get enough people to help you, consider it a clear message that what you want isn't important to enough others, and move on with your life. Or start trying to convince more people why they should want what you want, and to be willing to chip in to get it.
Anything less is hilariously hypocritical.
.
Pointless points
Some people, whenever they say something about someone else, always seem to feel the need to include irrelevant points about that person. "This guy came in the store- he was 'Black'..." or "This guy I know- he's gay..."
And almost never does the story have anything to do with the details they parenthetically add.
I don't see the point.
If someone is telling about me, such as saying I was eating a burrito, making a point to mention I was wearing a hat- when the hat doesn't enter the story in any way- would be silly. Well, making the effort to include irrelevant details about people based on their "race" or "orientation" is just as dumb.
.
And almost never does the story have anything to do with the details they parenthetically add.
I don't see the point.
If someone is telling about me, such as saying I was eating a burrito, making a point to mention I was wearing a hat- when the hat doesn't enter the story in any way- would be silly. Well, making the effort to include irrelevant details about people based on their "race" or "orientation" is just as dumb.
.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Nature, or choice?
"White" people don't wake up one morning and choose to be "White", and decide that being "White" means they need to hate everyone who isn't "White".
But cops do wake up one morning and decide to join a gang which only continues to exist to attack people, enforce theft against people, force people to obey counterfeit rules which are often harmful and almost always in violation of their Rightful Liberty.
That's why the "argument" is a non-sequitur. And why there is no such thing as a "good cop".
It's not labeling- it's an acceptance of reality and ethics.
.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Innocent until proven guilty
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a good way to run a court or arbitration service, but a lousy way to live. I know that sounds harsh.
People are either guilty or they aren't. Your decision (or court verdict or even evidence) doesn't change their guilt or innocence. You might be wrong either way.
But, I give people the benefit of the doubt. Unless I know from first hand experience that they either did what they are accused or, or are likely to have done it based on a history I have personal knowledge of.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is being nice, but it can also be foolish and suicidal. Instead, I'll give even the "proved" guilty the benefit of the doubt, while never going to condition white, no matter who it is. If, from personal experience, I know they are guilty and dangerous, though, all bets are off.
.
People are either guilty or they aren't. Your decision (or court verdict or even evidence) doesn't change their guilt or innocence. You might be wrong either way.
But, I give people the benefit of the doubt. Unless I know from first hand experience that they either did what they are accused or, or are likely to have done it based on a history I have personal knowledge of.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is being nice, but it can also be foolish and suicidal. Instead, I'll give even the "proved" guilty the benefit of the doubt, while never going to condition white, no matter who it is. If, from personal experience, I know they are guilty and dangerous, though, all bets are off.
.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
My ignorance
There are plenty of things I don't know enough about. There isn't enough time to learn everything about everything which might affect me. Sometimes ignorance leads to suspicion or fear. I understand that.
What I don't understand is when people let their ignorance-based fear control them, and then use that fear as an excuse to control others.
Just for example- I don't understand fracking well enough to know whether it is harmful to groundwater or to know whether it causes earthquakes. The "stuff" I have heard against fracking sounds "reasonable", and makes me highly suspicious of the technique. But I don't know enough to really say with any confidence one way or the other. And you probably don't either even if you believe you do.
My safetyness makes me want to err on the side of caution. But not enough to get politicians and "laws" involved, since that is something I know beyond any doubt to be harmful.
.
What I don't understand is when people let their ignorance-based fear control them, and then use that fear as an excuse to control others.
Just for example- I don't understand fracking well enough to know whether it is harmful to groundwater or to know whether it causes earthquakes. The "stuff" I have heard against fracking sounds "reasonable", and makes me highly suspicious of the technique. But I don't know enough to really say with any confidence one way or the other. And you probably don't either even if you believe you do.
My safetyness makes me want to err on the side of caution. But not enough to get politicians and "laws" involved, since that is something I know beyond any doubt to be harmful.
.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Kidnap survivors and heroes
A person who has been kidnapped ("arrested") for breaking a counterfeit rule isn't necessarily a hero. Even though they didn't initiate force or violate property while committing their "crime".
A hero is someone who goes through that without giving in to the temptation to do the wrong thing, and comes out stronger and even more principled than before.
At least, that is the person I see as heroic.
.
A hero is someone who goes through that without giving in to the temptation to do the wrong thing, and comes out stronger and even more principled than before.
At least, that is the person I see as heroic.
.
Wednesday, September 09, 2015
Seeing the real aggressor
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Society, a country, or a world can't violate or initiate force against you. It's always done an individual at a time.
Even if everyone votes to violate you, it is up to someone to agree to carry out that vote. That one individual will be the one violating you, not all the voters. Although they certainly aren't making matters better.
If I tell Bob to go hit you in the nose, Bob (if he carries it out) is the one guilty of hitting you in the nose. He had a choice, and he made the wrong one. I'm not saying it was right of me to tell him to violate you- it wasn't- but the ultimate blame rests on the person stupid or evil enough to do the wrong thing just because some moron told him to. Or millions of morons.
In the same way, it doesn't matter if voters approve some violation by a landslide margin. The real guilt lies with the person stupid or evil enough to enforce the vote.
I don't think it's even possible to be violated by hundreds of people at once. There is always a place where the mob meets the individual, and it is those few people at the edge doing all the violating, no matter how many are behind them.
If you feel violated by someone far away, whom you have never seen or met, you are looking for an excuse to feel victimized.
I may despise Michael Bloomberg and his anti-liberty bigotry, but in spite of the "laws" he is buying across the country, I don't feel he has ever personally violated me. I wouldn't lift a finger to save his parasitic life, but I probably wouldn't ever put forth the effort to punch him in the nose, either. If his "laws" ever violate me, it is purely through the action of some cop or bureaucrat who is in my face, not some vile vermin thousands of miles away.
.
Society, a country, or a world can't violate or initiate force against you. It's always done an individual at a time.
Even if everyone votes to violate you, it is up to someone to agree to carry out that vote. That one individual will be the one violating you, not all the voters. Although they certainly aren't making matters better.
If I tell Bob to go hit you in the nose, Bob (if he carries it out) is the one guilty of hitting you in the nose. He had a choice, and he made the wrong one. I'm not saying it was right of me to tell him to violate you- it wasn't- but the ultimate blame rests on the person stupid or evil enough to do the wrong thing just because some moron told him to. Or millions of morons.
In the same way, it doesn't matter if voters approve some violation by a landslide margin. The real guilt lies with the person stupid or evil enough to enforce the vote.
I don't think it's even possible to be violated by hundreds of people at once. There is always a place where the mob meets the individual, and it is those few people at the edge doing all the violating, no matter how many are behind them.
If you feel violated by someone far away, whom you have never seen or met, you are looking for an excuse to feel victimized.
I may despise Michael Bloomberg and his anti-liberty bigotry, but in spite of the "laws" he is buying across the country, I don't feel he has ever personally violated me. I wouldn't lift a finger to save his parasitic life, but I probably wouldn't ever put forth the effort to punch him in the nose, either. If his "laws" ever violate me, it is purely through the action of some cop or bureaucrat who is in my face, not some vile vermin thousands of miles away.
.
Seeing clearly
I recently got new glasses. First time in over 14 years! Well, technically, I got new lenses in some frames I already had on hand- bought a year ago in anticipation. (If anyone wants to donate to my vision fund, I'd certainly welcome it.) I can see again- with both eyes. This is a good thing.
My vision has always been bad. I got my first glasses about the time I turned 7. I can still remember how strange it felt to realize I hadn't been seeing well before. Until I had something to compare how I was seeing to how I should be seeing, I didn't know I wasn't seeing the world as it was. I didn't know things were out of focus.
Well, the same goes for statists.
Until they are shown what the world really looks like, they can't know they are seeing an out of focus, distorted version of reality. I make it my goal to let a few of them look through my spectacles as often as I can. If they squeeze their eyes shut and don't want to see reality, that's on them. I've done my part.
.
My vision has always been bad. I got my first glasses about the time I turned 7. I can still remember how strange it felt to realize I hadn't been seeing well before. Until I had something to compare how I was seeing to how I should be seeing, I didn't know I wasn't seeing the world as it was. I didn't know things were out of focus.
Well, the same goes for statists.
Until they are shown what the world really looks like, they can't know they are seeing an out of focus, distorted version of reality. I make it my goal to let a few of them look through my spectacles as often as I can. If they squeeze their eyes shut and don't want to see reality, that's on them. I've done my part.
.
Tuesday, September 08, 2015
Time to make stand against tyranny
Time to make stand against tyranny
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 7, 2015)
When did chickens become big news in Clovis? When local bullies decided to use them as justification for pushing people around.
It may seem trivial to worry about whether or not the city allows chickens, but it’s a symptom of a pervasive problem: violation of self determination and property rights. The attitude which causes government employees to try to ban chickens is the same attitude behind police brutality, the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, anti-gun laws, and other human rights violations. The underlying disorder is the belief in government supremacy.
There is one simple solution.
Once you allow anyone to develop the belief that they are entitled to run your life, there is nowhere they will stop- unless you stop them. At some point you have to put your foot down, make a line in the sand, and say "No". This should be natural for anyone who believes in individual rights.
Enforcing nonsensical rules against keeping chickens is one way to steal property. Sure, the city may not actually take the home- at least not yet- but they are trying to steal the value of the home from the home owner. If you have a camera, but are not allowed to take pictures, you might as well not own one. If you aren't allowed to drive your car, what good is it to you? If you aren't allowed to use your house as you want, you don't really have a home at all.
It doesn't endanger you to stand up for property rights in this case. If you don't stand up for what's right when it is safe and easy, how do you expect to have the courage to stand up for the right thing when it is hard? When there is personal risk? Courage is like a muscle- you need to exercise it. This is a good opportunity for developing some courage. Stand up to those who are trying to destroy the value of a person's private property. Don't back down. Demand Rightful Liberty be respected. Then, if they ignore you, civil disobedience is in order. Maybe what Clovis needs is hundreds of new chicken owners defying the "law".
With the practice people get from this act of righteous rebellion, they can expand to all the other ways the "authorities" try to violate life, liberty, and property. We could make enforcement too costly. Perhaps, we could make them regret ever taking the job.
It is in apparently trivial matters such as this where the future will be determined. Do you want your children or grandchildren to live in liberty, or under tyranny? Choose your side, and make a stand now.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 7, 2015)
When did chickens become big news in Clovis? When local bullies decided to use them as justification for pushing people around.
It may seem trivial to worry about whether or not the city allows chickens, but it’s a symptom of a pervasive problem: violation of self determination and property rights. The attitude which causes government employees to try to ban chickens is the same attitude behind police brutality, the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, anti-gun laws, and other human rights violations. The underlying disorder is the belief in government supremacy.
There is one simple solution.
Once you allow anyone to develop the belief that they are entitled to run your life, there is nowhere they will stop- unless you stop them. At some point you have to put your foot down, make a line in the sand, and say "No". This should be natural for anyone who believes in individual rights.
Enforcing nonsensical rules against keeping chickens is one way to steal property. Sure, the city may not actually take the home- at least not yet- but they are trying to steal the value of the home from the home owner. If you have a camera, but are not allowed to take pictures, you might as well not own one. If you aren't allowed to drive your car, what good is it to you? If you aren't allowed to use your house as you want, you don't really have a home at all.
It doesn't endanger you to stand up for property rights in this case. If you don't stand up for what's right when it is safe and easy, how do you expect to have the courage to stand up for the right thing when it is hard? When there is personal risk? Courage is like a muscle- you need to exercise it. This is a good opportunity for developing some courage. Stand up to those who are trying to destroy the value of a person's private property. Don't back down. Demand Rightful Liberty be respected. Then, if they ignore you, civil disobedience is in order. Maybe what Clovis needs is hundreds of new chicken owners defying the "law".
With the practice people get from this act of righteous rebellion, they can expand to all the other ways the "authorities" try to violate life, liberty, and property. We could make enforcement too costly. Perhaps, we could make them regret ever taking the job.
It is in apparently trivial matters such as this where the future will be determined. Do you want your children or grandchildren to live in liberty, or under tyranny? Choose your side, and make a stand now.
.
Excuses for Borderism
Maybe America and "our culture" can't survive the lack of a government enforced border.
Maybe gun owners will see their liberty stripped away due to new "laws" supported by new migrants.
Maybe welfare will be overwhelmed and run out of funds. LOL.
That still doesn't make borderism OK.
If your culture can't compete, it's probably not worth propping up. America's culture (whatever that is, since it has never included me) is always in flux. It always has been and always will be. It's going to change, I might as well try to influence it to change the way I'd like. I intend to do all in my power to push it toward Rightful Liberty. I can't do that by violating my principles and advocating anti-liberty positions, no matter how "necessary" I may consider them. So I won't.
Gun owners have almost no liberty left, anyway. No matter who you blame for the situation. Your freedom to exercise your fundamental human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon you wish, everywhere you go, openly or concealed, without asking anyone's permission is basically gone. You still have the right to do so, however, and no rules, policies, or "laws" can ever change that. You are just going to need to decide whether you are going to obey counterfeit "laws" or not. No matter who lives in America, the choice will always be yours to make.
I don't believe "welfare" can ever run out of money, since the money is counterfeited by government. They'll always print more to keep it going. This contributes to the ultimate failure of the US Police State, so I say bring it on! Yes, some people will get hurt. It's not like they haven't had plenty of warning. If they refused to listen, that's not your responsibility. Whatever causes people to become disillusioned (which I suppose means "stripped of the illusion") with The State is a good thing. I want all States to fail- as soon as possible.
The excuses still don't hold up. Supporting borders is supporting States. Do what you want, but I'll continue to believe in private property rights, not collective property which trumps private property rights.
.
Maybe gun owners will see their liberty stripped away due to new "laws" supported by new migrants.
Maybe welfare will be overwhelmed and run out of funds. LOL.
That still doesn't make borderism OK.
If your culture can't compete, it's probably not worth propping up. America's culture (whatever that is, since it has never included me) is always in flux. It always has been and always will be. It's going to change, I might as well try to influence it to change the way I'd like. I intend to do all in my power to push it toward Rightful Liberty. I can't do that by violating my principles and advocating anti-liberty positions, no matter how "necessary" I may consider them. So I won't.
Gun owners have almost no liberty left, anyway. No matter who you blame for the situation. Your freedom to exercise your fundamental human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon you wish, everywhere you go, openly or concealed, without asking anyone's permission is basically gone. You still have the right to do so, however, and no rules, policies, or "laws" can ever change that. You are just going to need to decide whether you are going to obey counterfeit "laws" or not. No matter who lives in America, the choice will always be yours to make.
I don't believe "welfare" can ever run out of money, since the money is counterfeited by government. They'll always print more to keep it going. This contributes to the ultimate failure of the US Police State, so I say bring it on! Yes, some people will get hurt. It's not like they haven't had plenty of warning. If they refused to listen, that's not your responsibility. Whatever causes people to become disillusioned (which I suppose means "stripped of the illusion") with The State is a good thing. I want all States to fail- as soon as possible.
The excuses still don't hold up. Supporting borders is supporting States. Do what you want, but I'll continue to believe in private property rights, not collective property which trumps private property rights.
.
Monday, September 07, 2015
Dull 'Hawk-isms
These were all posted as my Facebook statuses recently. I decided to share them here.
- Ron Paul got liberty-leaning statist voters excited by pointing out that 4 + 6 = 10. Bernie Sanders gets economically ignorant voters excited by saying 7 divided by Tuesday wants to be whatever they imagine.
- If there's a Carrington Event level solar storm and we lose all electronics for a few decades, know that even if we never connect again, I am probably very happy with the turn of events. Yes, it's a character flaw.
- (If you support any candidate for president, you are not supporting liberty.)
- I fear Darth Voter much more than Darth Vader.
- "Wanting something to be regulated doesn't mean you want it banned!" Well, perhaps. But what it means is you want to give someone the power to ban it if they want to. Why would you do that? You can see this effect in many areas.
- What is wrong inside the heads of people who want to ban or regulate stuff?? I seriously don't get it at all.
- You have the right to live according to your faith. You do not have a right to a "government job".
- I hate random "what if" scenarios. Especially if they are calculated to scare you into some self-defeating course.
Sunday, September 06, 2015
Vaping bans- oh, the stupidity
Laws are based on lies. Those lies are told to convince you to go along with being ordered around.
Recently during a car ride with my parents, the subject of vaping came up.
My dad objects to vaping because "kids put marijuana in e-cigarettes".
My mom objects because she has "heard that it's just as dangerous as smoking".
When confronted by such obvious brainwashing I need to ask questions to show the silliness of the claims, or to find out why the claim justifies "laws". But, instead I usually get irritated.
I don't know if kids put pot in e-cigs. And it doesn't matter if they do. People can put pot in brownies, pipes, paper, car cigarette lighters, glass, and many other things. Should we ban everything?
Even the feds are finally admitting to more medically beneficial effects of Cannabis- while insisting it must remain banned because it "has no legitimate medical use". A lie. But even it it was dangerous, and kids insisted on inhaling it, it doesn't make prohibition right. Eating cat litter is probably much more dangerous than vaping Cannabis, but it isn't a political cause. Yet.
But what if vaping is DANGEROUS?!?
Recent studies suggest that nicotine is probably no more dangerous than caffeine (also a poison). But what if they are wrong? If you want to inhale nicotine- or ingest caffeine- no one has a right to say you can't. For sure, vaping nicotine is going to be less harmful than inhaling nicotine in smoke. But what if I'm wrong about that? It still doesn't matter.
I am a non-smoker. I am not an anti-smoker. I grow tobacco. I have several old pipes that I love to hold and look at. I have an old pipe that looks like something Sherlock Holmes (the popular conception of him, anyway) would have smoked. I like how the old pipes smell- it's a good smell. I like the smell of pipe smoke if someone is smoking one in my presence. Sometimes I enjoy a faint whiff of cigar smoke. Even cigarette smoke brings back fond memories of smoky bars and karaoke. I have no desire to inhale tobacco smoke- unless it is in a bar during karaoke. In which case I'd probably put up with piranhas nipping at my ankles. If I am somewhere, and smoke is bothering me, I move away. It is so simple I can't understand why others don't discover that trick. Yes, there are times or places where you can't move away. In that case you may need to plan ahead. If you don't like being in a car with smoke, don't allow smoking in your car, or don't hitch a ride with a smoker.
I am a non-vaper. I am not an anti-vaper. If I had a vaping pipe that looked like my Sherlock Holmes pipe, I'd probably occasionally use it. I'm not too worried about getting addicted- I seem to be resistant to addiction. I'll not say how I know that. A person vaping in my present wouldn't bother me any more than a person reading a book in my presence. The puffs of vapor don't scare or offend me in any way. Sometimes it even smells good- and is probably healthier than smelling most air freshener sprays. Even if the vapor contains trace amounts of nicotine.
The knee-jerk "laws" and rules against vaping- or against certain people vaping- are idiotic. They are violations of liberty. While a business owner has the right to ban vaping on-premises, doing so shows the owner to be ignorant. Possibly even stupid. Certainly they are someone hopping on a bandwagon of hysteria rather than thinking for himself. They are banning something because it kinda, sorta looks like something else. If you can't see that an e-cig looks nothing like a tobacco cigarette.
I just don't understand the minds of people who want to ban things.
.
Recently during a car ride with my parents, the subject of vaping came up.
My dad objects to vaping because "kids put marijuana in e-cigarettes".
My mom objects because she has "heard that it's just as dangerous as smoking".
When confronted by such obvious brainwashing I need to ask questions to show the silliness of the claims, or to find out why the claim justifies "laws". But, instead I usually get irritated.
I don't know if kids put pot in e-cigs. And it doesn't matter if they do. People can put pot in brownies, pipes, paper, car cigarette lighters, glass, and many other things. Should we ban everything?
Even the feds are finally admitting to more medically beneficial effects of Cannabis- while insisting it must remain banned because it "has no legitimate medical use". A lie. But even it it was dangerous, and kids insisted on inhaling it, it doesn't make prohibition right. Eating cat litter is probably much more dangerous than vaping Cannabis, but it isn't a political cause. Yet.
But what if vaping is DANGEROUS?!?
Recent studies suggest that nicotine is probably no more dangerous than caffeine (also a poison). But what if they are wrong? If you want to inhale nicotine- or ingest caffeine- no one has a right to say you can't. For sure, vaping nicotine is going to be less harmful than inhaling nicotine in smoke. But what if I'm wrong about that? It still doesn't matter.
I am a non-smoker. I am not an anti-smoker. I grow tobacco. I have several old pipes that I love to hold and look at. I have an old pipe that looks like something Sherlock Holmes (the popular conception of him, anyway) would have smoked. I like how the old pipes smell- it's a good smell. I like the smell of pipe smoke if someone is smoking one in my presence. Sometimes I enjoy a faint whiff of cigar smoke. Even cigarette smoke brings back fond memories of smoky bars and karaoke. I have no desire to inhale tobacco smoke- unless it is in a bar during karaoke. In which case I'd probably put up with piranhas nipping at my ankles. If I am somewhere, and smoke is bothering me, I move away. It is so simple I can't understand why others don't discover that trick. Yes, there are times or places where you can't move away. In that case you may need to plan ahead. If you don't like being in a car with smoke, don't allow smoking in your car, or don't hitch a ride with a smoker.
I am a non-vaper. I am not an anti-vaper. If I had a vaping pipe that looked like my Sherlock Holmes pipe, I'd probably occasionally use it. I'm not too worried about getting addicted- I seem to be resistant to addiction. I'll not say how I know that. A person vaping in my present wouldn't bother me any more than a person reading a book in my presence. The puffs of vapor don't scare or offend me in any way. Sometimes it even smells good- and is probably healthier than smelling most air freshener sprays. Even if the vapor contains trace amounts of nicotine.
The knee-jerk "laws" and rules against vaping- or against certain people vaping- are idiotic. They are violations of liberty. While a business owner has the right to ban vaping on-premises, doing so shows the owner to be ignorant. Possibly even stupid. Certainly they are someone hopping on a bandwagon of hysteria rather than thinking for himself. They are banning something because it kinda, sorta looks like something else. If you can't see that an e-cig looks nothing like a tobacco cigarette.
I just don't understand the minds of people who want to ban things.
.
Saturday, September 05, 2015
"Kill them all, let God sort them out!"
I've mostly kept quiet about the comments which include some form of that statement.
Until now.
It is a horrible sentiment- one only suited for statists. Either religious statists, or statists who don't want to accept responsibility for their actions- not that there's any real difference.
First of all, I utterly lack a belief in any god/s, so I don't believe there is any sorting to be done. This life is it. Killing a person who is currently initiating force or violating property is one thing- the violator chose the path. That could even include those who choose to do this as an essential part of their "job". Killing anyone else is wrong. It is evil. It is what government militaries do. They call it "collateral damage", but it is murder. Anyone following their example is committing evil exactly like them. You can't "beat" the enemy by becoming indistinguishable from him.
You are ending a person's life pointlessly. Or maybe simply because you can't be bothered to discern between the truly guilty and bystanders. You are refusing to do your job of "sorting" and trying to place that burden on someone else- someone whom I am convinced doesn't even exist.
Now, if there were an "afterlife" which included consciousness and the potential for happiness or contentment, I can see where murdering an innocent could be considered not too horrible. But since I see such beliefs as completely unfounded, I see the murder of innocents as completely inexcusable.
"Kill 'em all" is the reality, "let God sort 'em out" is the fantasy by which the evil reality is "justified". If you want to kill everyone, just admit it and don't try to place your burden on your god.
I understand the frustration behind the statement- assuming it isn't coming from an agent provocateur. But frustration isn't a good reason for a shortcut- especially not so serious a shortcut where mistakes can never be rectified. The rabid statists will probably never be changed. The soft statists may be. Threatening to kill them when they aren't currently engaged in violating person or property probably won't help.
I don't care if you believe in gods as long as you don't use that belief to justify murder (or any other initiation of force or property violation). I know some believers I would trust to have my back. Anyone who says "kill them all and let God sort them out", and means it, is not someone I would trust.
If this offends the person I'm referring to, he is welcome to stop reading my blog. He is welcome to call me any names, or see any motives behind my post he feels appropriate. I won't ban him from commenting, nor will I say more about that particular phrase (unless something escalates). In fact, I'm not even angry at the sentiment being expressed.
It simply isn't my way, nor do I think it fits with Rightful Liberty in any way. Your mileage may vary.
.
Until now.
It is a horrible sentiment- one only suited for statists. Either religious statists, or statists who don't want to accept responsibility for their actions- not that there's any real difference.
First of all, I utterly lack a belief in any god/s, so I don't believe there is any sorting to be done. This life is it. Killing a person who is currently initiating force or violating property is one thing- the violator chose the path. That could even include those who choose to do this as an essential part of their "job". Killing anyone else is wrong. It is evil. It is what government militaries do. They call it "collateral damage", but it is murder. Anyone following their example is committing evil exactly like them. You can't "beat" the enemy by becoming indistinguishable from him.
You are ending a person's life pointlessly. Or maybe simply because you can't be bothered to discern between the truly guilty and bystanders. You are refusing to do your job of "sorting" and trying to place that burden on someone else- someone whom I am convinced doesn't even exist.
Now, if there were an "afterlife" which included consciousness and the potential for happiness or contentment, I can see where murdering an innocent could be considered not too horrible. But since I see such beliefs as completely unfounded, I see the murder of innocents as completely inexcusable.
"Kill 'em all" is the reality, "let God sort 'em out" is the fantasy by which the evil reality is "justified". If you want to kill everyone, just admit it and don't try to place your burden on your god.
I understand the frustration behind the statement- assuming it isn't coming from an agent provocateur. But frustration isn't a good reason for a shortcut- especially not so serious a shortcut where mistakes can never be rectified. The rabid statists will probably never be changed. The soft statists may be. Threatening to kill them when they aren't currently engaged in violating person or property probably won't help.
I don't care if you believe in gods as long as you don't use that belief to justify murder (or any other initiation of force or property violation). I know some believers I would trust to have my back. Anyone who says "kill them all and let God sort them out", and means it, is not someone I would trust.
If this offends the person I'm referring to, he is welcome to stop reading my blog. He is welcome to call me any names, or see any motives behind my post he feels appropriate. I won't ban him from commenting, nor will I say more about that particular phrase (unless something escalates). In fact, I'm not even angry at the sentiment being expressed.
It simply isn't my way, nor do I think it fits with Rightful Liberty in any way. Your mileage may vary.
.
Thursday, September 03, 2015
You can't spell it without "best"
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Recently I saw a news story about a woman who was arrested after pictures surfaced of her having sex with her dog. I'm not proud of the fact that this keeps coming back to my mind, but it does.
And, not in a good way.
It's like other horrific things I have seen or heard of; things I'd rather purge from my mind. But, which, for whatever reason, keep sticking around.
Bestiality utterly disgusts me... but for the life of me, I can't figure out any logical reason to criminalize it.
Who is harmed? The dog in this case had to be willing, plus he isn't a person. He wasn't even hurt. The woman was willing, and apparently enjoyed it. Even in cases of penetrative sex, there is no chance of a half human hybrid resulting. No risk of unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion.
It seems to all come down to disgust or "community standards", which are terrible excuses to destroy someone's life.
Which shows the difference between me and the control freaks out there. I am perfectly willing to be disgusted, and not use my emotional reaction as an excuse to kidnap someone and throw them in a cage- or murder them if they try to defend themselves from the kidnappers.
.
Recently I saw a news story about a woman who was arrested after pictures surfaced of her having sex with her dog. I'm not proud of the fact that this keeps coming back to my mind, but it does.
And, not in a good way.
It's like other horrific things I have seen or heard of; things I'd rather purge from my mind. But, which, for whatever reason, keep sticking around.
Bestiality utterly disgusts me... but for the life of me, I can't figure out any logical reason to criminalize it.
Who is harmed? The dog in this case had to be willing, plus he isn't a person. He wasn't even hurt. The woman was willing, and apparently enjoyed it. Even in cases of penetrative sex, there is no chance of a half human hybrid resulting. No risk of unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion.
It seems to all come down to disgust or "community standards", which are terrible excuses to destroy someone's life.
Which shows the difference between me and the control freaks out there. I am perfectly willing to be disgusted, and not use my emotional reaction as an excuse to kidnap someone and throw them in a cage- or murder them if they try to defend themselves from the kidnappers.
.
Cops vs security
If cops would act strictly as security, some of my objections to them would fade. I might choose to hire someone to investigate acts of aggression against my loved ones, or property violations against us, on my behalf.
I would still object to having to paying them by robbing my neighbors even if I did want to hire them for security. After all, theft is wrong even if it's for something I want.
But, it would still probably be better than what currently exists. I don't like being robbed to pay for my own violation. And this is what cops do. I don't want them kidnapping people for counterfeit "crimes". I don't want to pay them to spend time trying to catch me breaking their counterfeit rules. Modern policing does nothing beneficial, and lots of harmful things.
If I hired security and they treated people as cops do, I would fire them. And sue to get my money back. And encourage their victims to seek restitution. In fact, I would insist on such being part of any agreement I signed with them. You do not violate others or their property on my behalf, and if you do such things, I hope you suffer for it.
If you weren't forced to finance cops, would you?
I most certainly would not.
.
I would still object to having to paying them by robbing my neighbors even if I did want to hire them for security. After all, theft is wrong even if it's for something I want.
But, it would still probably be better than what currently exists. I don't like being robbed to pay for my own violation. And this is what cops do. I don't want them kidnapping people for counterfeit "crimes". I don't want to pay them to spend time trying to catch me breaking their counterfeit rules. Modern policing does nothing beneficial, and lots of harmful things.
If I hired security and they treated people as cops do, I would fire them. And sue to get my money back. And encourage their victims to seek restitution. In fact, I would insist on such being part of any agreement I signed with them. You do not violate others or their property on my behalf, and if you do such things, I hope you suffer for it.
If you weren't forced to finance cops, would you?
I most certainly would not.
.
Wednesday, September 02, 2015
My prejudice
I'm not prejudiced against people. I'm prejudiced against behaviors.
And, only two behaviors at that: using violence against those who aren't currently engaged in violence or property violations, and violating property.
That's it.
Other than that be who you are, do what you do, and I'm not prejudiced against you.
Well, if you support (or beg) others to do those two things for you, I may count that, too. Or, I'll certainly see you as part of the problem, and as not-too-bright.
If you support a candidate for president you are treading on dangerous ground. What you are doing amounts to begging someone to use violence against the innocent, and steal, on your behalf. It doesn't matter if you are supporting a DemoCRAPublican, or another type of socialist- you are saying you want me robbed and violated. That could make me cranky.
Supporting a political candidate is never supporting liberty. It is always supporting the opposite- no matter how "good" you believe the candidate to be.
.
And, only two behaviors at that: using violence against those who aren't currently engaged in violence or property violations, and violating property.
That's it.
Other than that be who you are, do what you do, and I'm not prejudiced against you.
Well, if you support (or beg) others to do those two things for you, I may count that, too. Or, I'll certainly see you as part of the problem, and as not-too-bright.
If you support a candidate for president you are treading on dangerous ground. What you are doing amounts to begging someone to use violence against the innocent, and steal, on your behalf. It doesn't matter if you are supporting a DemoCRAPublican, or another type of socialist- you are saying you want me robbed and violated. That could make me cranky.
Supporting a political candidate is never supporting liberty. It is always supporting the opposite- no matter how "good" you believe the candidate to be.
.
Tuesday, September 01, 2015
Today’s rules violate natural law
Today’s rules violate natural law
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 31, 2015)
I don’t want the “law” applied to everyone equally, not when the “law” violates rightful liberty. What I want is for no one to have their liberty violated by any law whatsoever.
If one neighbor is being harassed for the height of her grass, and another — who has the right connections — is being ignored, I don’t want the one with connections to be molested, too. I want both left alone.
If one person is being targeted for keeping chickens against the rules, I don't want them forced into compliance with disgusting rules, I want the rules abolished or universally ignored, since everyone should be able to use their property as they see fit. Just as important, I don't want the hypocrites of the city to get rid of their poultry at the parks; I want them to leave everyone else's poultry alone.
If my enemy is issued a citation because his car's license is expired, or because he has "out of state plates", I don't want the guy several blocks over who is "guilty" of the same infraction to also get a ticket, I want both left alone.
A "law" which violates your right to live as you see fit, earning money however you wish, using your property as it best serves you- as long as you don't violate the person or property of another- is not a real law. It is only a counterfeit rule. It shouldn't be enforced against anyone, no matter who their friends are or what connections they have. No matter who complains about them.
Counterfeit rules look like real laws. They are written in legalese by lawyers, recorded in rule books kept in courthouses, enforced by police, judged by judges, and imposed on people through the threat of violence. Supposedly without regard for person or position. Yet they lack the legitimate foundation of Natural Law. Instead of protecting life, liberty, and property, as Natural Law always must, they violate one or more of those in some way.
Real law doesn't need to be written down or enforced. Counterfeit "law" evaporates without enforcement. No one gets confused about whether it is wrong to rob a bank at gun point and shoot a few bystanders- because this is a violation of Natural Law. Most modern "laws" are nothing like this. They are arbitrary whims, imposed and enforced for the benefit of a few, to the detriment of the rest.
I don't want everyone molested equally- I want everyone's liberty to be respected. Regardless of whether they are my friend or not; even if their liberty offends me in some way. This is equality which matters.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 31, 2015)
I don’t want the “law” applied to everyone equally, not when the “law” violates rightful liberty. What I want is for no one to have their liberty violated by any law whatsoever.
If one neighbor is being harassed for the height of her grass, and another — who has the right connections — is being ignored, I don’t want the one with connections to be molested, too. I want both left alone.
If one person is being targeted for keeping chickens against the rules, I don't want them forced into compliance with disgusting rules, I want the rules abolished or universally ignored, since everyone should be able to use their property as they see fit. Just as important, I don't want the hypocrites of the city to get rid of their poultry at the parks; I want them to leave everyone else's poultry alone.
If my enemy is issued a citation because his car's license is expired, or because he has "out of state plates", I don't want the guy several blocks over who is "guilty" of the same infraction to also get a ticket, I want both left alone.
A "law" which violates your right to live as you see fit, earning money however you wish, using your property as it best serves you- as long as you don't violate the person or property of another- is not a real law. It is only a counterfeit rule. It shouldn't be enforced against anyone, no matter who their friends are or what connections they have. No matter who complains about them.
Counterfeit rules look like real laws. They are written in legalese by lawyers, recorded in rule books kept in courthouses, enforced by police, judged by judges, and imposed on people through the threat of violence. Supposedly without regard for person or position. Yet they lack the legitimate foundation of Natural Law. Instead of protecting life, liberty, and property, as Natural Law always must, they violate one or more of those in some way.
Real law doesn't need to be written down or enforced. Counterfeit "law" evaporates without enforcement. No one gets confused about whether it is wrong to rob a bank at gun point and shoot a few bystanders- because this is a violation of Natural Law. Most modern "laws" are nothing like this. They are arbitrary whims, imposed and enforced for the benefit of a few, to the detriment of the rest.
I don't want everyone molested equally- I want everyone's liberty to be respected. Regardless of whether they are my friend or not; even if their liberty offends me in some way. This is equality which matters.
.
Subscriber requests
If you've been thinking of subscribing through Paypal, consider doing so in the last half of the month. The majority of my subscriptions come in during the first half of the month, and it would be nice to have more come in during the second half to sort of even things out.
Also, my daughter is looking for funds of her own (through her mom), in case you'd rather help that way. She'd be thrilled.
Or, you can subscribe to my blogs through Patreon. It also comes in during the first half of the month, but if it got to be a large enough amount, it wouldn't matter when it came in.
In any case, thank you!
.
Also, my daughter is looking for funds of her own (through her mom), in case you'd rather help that way. She'd be thrilled.
Or, you can subscribe to my blogs through Patreon. It also comes in during the first half of the month, but if it got to be a large enough amount, it wouldn't matter when it came in.
In any case, thank you!
.
Shooting yourself in the foot to prove you won't change
Continuing the silliness of "government" ensures that at some time you will be Ruled by people you hate.
Those who kept propping up The State in the 60s ensured that eventually, the hippies they hated would be running the show. And imposing their beliefs and agenda with tactics borrowed and adapted from those who hated them most.
Continuing to prop up the State today means that at some point whoever you hate (or fear) the most will be in charge. It's simply inevitable.
Is this really what you want?
There is a better way. Why not rule yourself instead? Stop supporting States. Withdraw consent. Stop believing in "authority". Stop the silliness.
.
Those who kept propping up The State in the 60s ensured that eventually, the hippies they hated would be running the show. And imposing their beliefs and agenda with tactics borrowed and adapted from those who hated them most.
Continuing to prop up the State today means that at some point whoever you hate (or fear) the most will be in charge. It's simply inevitable.
Is this really what you want?
There is a better way. Why not rule yourself instead? Stop supporting States. Withdraw consent. Stop believing in "authority". Stop the silliness.
.