Saturday, October 31, 2015

"Keep out! applies to all

You can say "Keep out!" to anyone, but those bullies who work for The State  believe they are exempt. They believe if they are the ones doing it, it can't be "trespassing". They believe there is nowhere off limits to them because otherwise they couldn't do their "job".

They are actually a much worse threat to property rights than the migrants so many "conservatives" fear and hate (and use as justification for the property rights violators of the State).

And, most of the time they get away with it.

Shooting them for trespassing comes at a high cost. You might avoid being violated, or even murdered, at that moment, but stopping their immediate violation brings unending numbers of their brother gang members down on you. And disgusting copsuckers and other State worshipers will say you deserve it. Think of Cory Maye.

Well, trespassing applies to everyone. Badge or no badge, "papers" or none, "warrant" or none. If you trespass to conduct an inspection, you are still a trespasser. If you trespass to get where you want to go, you are still a trespasser. If you trespass to conduct an investigation, you are still a trespasser. Your "job" can't exempt you. And if you trespass with intent to commit acts of enforcement, I hope you die for it- preferably in such a way that your victim doesn't get blamed.


Thursday, October 29, 2015

Watch your step or fall into a statist bog

Over and over I see people who are very good allies of Rightful Liberty in so many areas, trip on that one "small" area where they really want government to meddle. Of course, there is no such thing as a "little government meddling".

Often the area that trips people up is "immigration", but recently an area I keep noticing cropping up is "traffic laws".

"It's dangerous to drive, so driving is a privilege, not a right!"

"Someone I know was killed in a car wreck, so we must have the State making and enforcing laws to prevent that from happening!"

It's really sickening.

How can a person advocate liberty so well, in just about every area of life, yet miss one giant log of statism in their eye?


Wednesday, October 28, 2015

LibertyLand- population: You

Because Govstatistan is global, you can't just "love it or leave it"; there is nowhere to go. No, not even Somalia, regardless of the claims of the liberty-ignorant.

So, you might as well carve out little pockets of liberty in the midst of Govstatistan, right where you live now.

It's nice when you can find or create a larger pocket, but even an individual can be his own tiny bubble of Rightful Liberty. Yes, there will be obstacles and bullies trying to get in your way (as there would be in Libertopia). Be creative. Work around them. It won't be perfect, but it'll be better than giving up.


Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Fear leads to obstruction of liberty

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 25, 2015)

When people who believe in government face the possibility of life without it- even hypothetically- they imagine all sorts of things they fear to lose. Never mind that if something is wanted or needed, someone will provide it. Affordably, because if you can't attract customers you haven't accomplished anything at all; you will go broke. Even charity would thrive again after being displaced and marginalized by "welfare" for so long.

The fearful never see the things they don't even realize they are being cheated out of. Things prevented from being realized by too much central control. Their imagination only leans toward doom and gloom scenarios, never toward positive possibilities.

Faced with the concrete fact of government failure over thousands of years of recorded history, they demand to know exactly how liberty would solve every single problem they can imagine, down to the smallest detail, before giving it consideration. If their faith in government weren't so dogmatic they would recognize government could never live up to the certainty they demand of a free society. But they won't, because it is. And, because overcoming inertia is too uncomfortable.

When people start putting their fears into words, usually prefaced by "what if", I see it as an opportunity to think. I can think of many different ways each of these supposed deal-killers might be solved without violating any person or property. There's no guarantee the solution which would rise to the top would be among those I think of. Humans are very innovative when not bound by artificial constraints. The solutions found would probably be better than anything I can come up with. The solutions I can think of don't even have to be one of the options tried.

The existence of possible solutions should be enough to calm fears, but it never is, because there is always uncertainty. Uncertainty in something innovative and new is scarier than tragic certainties in the familiar. At least for most people.

It wouldn't be an issue if the fearful would not try to stop the rest of us. I have no desire to force liberty on anyone, but I resent when fear leads them to try to obstruct the liberty of myself and others. It's a case of "lead, follow, or get out of the way", where they refuse all those options and instead pull guns on us and say "No, you are staying where you are because I'm scared". It's a situation that can't last.

Whoosh! Right over his head

"Get over this 'mean cop' thing".

Ummm... if that's what you think it is when I share the latest murder-by-cop or bullying incident by a badgethug, you have completely missed the point. It isn't that cops are "mean"; it is that by doing their "jobs", they are evil. They are enemies of liberty. They are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face.

Even if I "got over it", the truth would still be the truth.

It's like if I say Ebola is deadly. Or refuse to say so in order to not offend someone- or some virus. Refusing to say its nature is deadly doesn't change anything. It isn't rude to point it out; it is helpful to remind people why they might want to avoid the disease. If you don't like it and tell me I should "get over this 'deadly Ebola' thing", does that change the nature of the disease?

If so, we should all ignore heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other diseases.



Monday, October 26, 2015

"All rise as we recite..."

I don't lead children (not even my own) in anarchist chants. I am not out to indoctrinate anyone.

Even if there were a "pledge of Rightful Liberty" I wouldn't make kids recite it. Nor would I make them parrot the Zero Aggression Principle back on cue.

Statists do make kids recite statist chants, though. All the time. In ways both open and hidden.

That's probably why there are so many more statists.



Sunday, October 25, 2015

See a good idea? Grab it.

All good ideas are essentially libertarian in nature. Yes, really.

Anyone can have good ideas you should adopt. I get good ideas from people who oppose everything I stand for all the time, because most people are libertarian in their personal lives- otherwise they would be dead. This means they already have libertarian ideas bouncing around inside their skulls. Sometimes those ideas will become public. When they do, grab them.

Any idea which advocates initiation of force or theft is not a good idea. The advocate may believe it's "necessary", or "pragmatic", or some other dishonest justification, but it still isn't a good idea. And it's an anti-libertarian idea.

So, even if the most despicable statist you have ever heard of comes up with a good idea, accept it. If it's good, it's libertarian.


Saturday, October 24, 2015

Answering a possible Borderist

(Previously posted to Patreon)

And I say "possible" because I am not quite certain I understood his point.

Sometimes I get an email I must answer at length. This is one such, inspired by my latest CNJ column:

Human have been migrants for 6,000 to millions of years, i.e. for as long as there have been humans. There are still migrants, willing to move to better their lives. As a retired couple, travelling around in our 5th wheel, the majority of people we meet are migrant Workers. There are the non-migrants that expect the Government provide them with all that they need to live. People take out huge mortgages and then lie to themselves that they own their own home. If their job disappears, the Government is responsible for them to keep their home. If not, they walk and it is evil banks that are responsible for their loss of home. People even Believe that the Government will save the world from “Climate Change,” creating a “Garden of Eden,” where they and their progeny can stay forever and ever. There are migrants that are willing to migrate to where there are jobs, opportunities; the right climate. Not sure why you want to denigrate migrants and bait and switch them with people who are in the US illegally. Wouldn’t that be the “hate” you are religiously judging people of a certain political persuasion to possess?
Waving the Federal flag in their face? You have political parties confused. Republicans want States’ Rights and the Democrat Party wants a strong, centralized “Federal” Government in Washington, DC controlling “We The People.” BTW: the Supreme Entity of the Federal Government has turned our secular government into a Religion/Church. The SCOTUS morally judges “We The People” and commands us how our laws should read.
Calling people who are in the US illegally makes them illegals, rapists and murderers is wrong in your mind? How is that different than saying people who are in the US legally are citizens, Democrats and Republicans? This is not an all or nothing reality. What is rape? 99% of the time it has nothing to do with “sex.” What is murder? People murder Shakespeare all of the time.
In reality, most emigrants, whether legal or illegal, are attempting to be independent and self-reliant. It is the people that Believe that the Federal Church of the United States Government is responsible for the welfare of its flock that is “denying” independence and self-reliance.
Trump, for example, has specifically explained what behaviors he would defend against and then you bait and switch to make it all inclusive. All illegals are migrants or emigrants. Not all migrants and emigrants are illegals. One can’t arbitrarily bounce between these three distinct definitions for the benefit of profit or political gain. But it is obviously done every day. You claim you aren’t taking sides? It is obvious that you have in this case. Don’t you find it ironic that while the Democrat Party claims to “hate” Christians, the majority of issues on their platform comes directly from the Judeo/Christian Bible? Don’t you find it equally ironic that the Republican Party preaches “Family values,” the majority of issues on their platform is derived from the Theory of Evolution: Survival of the Fittest; Adapt; and their favorite Natural Selection?

So, I answered. You'll get a sneak peak at a blog entry I am in the process of writing, because it fit in with what I needed to say to him.:

Thanks for taking the time to write. I'm not quite sure where you were going, but if you think for a moment I believe in "government" or want it to do anything, to anyone or "for" anyone, you are mistaken.
There can be no such thing as an "illegal" person. I am not a believer in documents binding people who didn't physically agree to them, but most people who speak of "illegals" are, and yet the Constitution doesn't allow "immigration control"- it does allow control over the number of slaves imported, but that is different. Until the late 1800s no one believed the government could tell people where they were allowed to live. Since then many different groups have been targeted for "immigrant" paranoia: Catholics, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc. It just so happens that the scary "immigrant" of the moment is Hispanics.
One reason those words- migrant, emigrant, immigrant- have different meanings is because people use language to trick people into believing what they want them to believe. And, no person can be an "illegal".
A migrant is someone who moves to a new place.
An immigrant is someone who moves into a new place claimed by a different gang of thugs than the place he left.
An emigrant is someone who moves away from where he lived before. I don't denigrate migrants, because there is nothing wrong with being an "immigrant".
An "illegal" is someone who moved to a new place in spite of unconstitutional "laws"- and the Supreme Court even declared in the early 1800s that any "law" contrary to the Constitution isn't a real law and no one is obligated to obey it. No one. "Immigration control" is a perfect example of that.
Borderists make a lot of assumptions about me based on my unyielding respect for Rightful Liberty. And, if you don't know what Rightful Liberty is, here is Thomas Jefferson's explanation: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." Jefferson knew what a counterfeit "law" was.
Here is some clarification about what I actually believe from an upcoming blog I have written:
I believe in private property, and I think shooting someone for trespassing is sometimes the right thing to do. I would never want to second guess a person who shoots a trespasser- especially an adult trespasser. Or a trespasser who is littering and damaging the property, or threatening the owners.
I would not sit still for people moving into my house and declaring they will live there. But I don't own your house and I know I have no say in who you invite into yours. To pretend otherwise is a form of theft.
I do not want to see "others" move into the area until they outnumber me and begin to push me around. In the same way, I don't like that I am outnumbered and surrounded by people who follow religions I find abhorrent even now. Religions very popular with mainstream America. Including the world's most popular religion: statism.
I do believe some religions are worse than others, and some cultures are sick and twisted.
I do not believe "The Country" negates private property of those living inside the government's imaginary borders, but that this belief directly violates private property rights in the most evil way imaginable- by utterly ignoring or denying them. Just like those the borderists want "government" to protect them from.
I do not believe violating your property rights to make myself more comfortable is right. I don't believe using the force of government to dictate who you can allow onto your property, or rent to or hire, is the answer. It is wrong.
I do not advocate stealing from you ("taxation") to finance a gang to patrol the "borders" and to molest people both along the "borders" and well away from those "borders". Theft is theft, and everything such a gang does- except in rare instances- is an initiation of force.
Borderism is socialism. Sometimes it is even communism. It is always collectivism, theft, and aggression- which is what statism is.
Those who are setting up an armed guard to repel trespassers are acting as though they believe in their own property rights, but by advocating "borders" and "immigration control" they are acting as though they don't believe in private property at all, but only collective property administered by a State. Which makes me see them as being contradictory and deluded. I would gladly help protect my neighbor's property from invaders, using force or arms, unless he advocated taking my property from me under the guise of "government".
If that's what you advocate, own it. Stop complaining when I or others point it out. If your position is right, why be ashamed and why get angry?
I don't believe in government at all, particularly not that it can create a Garden of Eden. I believe all welfare, including Social Security, farm subsidies, corporate bailouts, government pensions, medicaid/medicare should be ended immediately.
There is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't matter if you value "state's rights" over individual rights, or "federal rights" over individual rights. Because "states" and "the federal government" can have no rights. Rights are purely individual, not collective. No collective can have rights- they can have power, but that power is never legitimate- and there is no such thing as "authority" (belief in "authority" is the most dangerous superstition). And most of the people I see worshiping the federal flag most reverently call themselves Republicans, even as they claim to want "state's rights". It's odd. I find Democrats and Republicans equally statist and equally disgusting and dishonest. They only vary in how they propose to violate Rightful Liberty and sacrifice the individual to the collective. If a person who calls himself by one of those labels actually respects Rightful Liberty, then he is showing, by his beliefs and the actions which will result from those beliefs, that he isn't a Good Democrat/Republican, but is instead a good person. You really can't be both.
If an individual commits aggression or property violation, then that individual is guilty. Be it rape, murder, or whatever. Calling people you associate with him a rapist/whatever is wrong if that individual didn't commit that specific act. And, again, breaking counterfeit :laws" isn't wrong, so calling a person who ignored "immigration laws" and "illegal" is dishonest. Are you an "illegal" if you ignore some unconstitutional anti-gun "law"? Not at all. But that's the argument of those who call people "illegals" for ignoring unconstitutional "immigration laws". It simply won't fly.



Abraham Lincoln may just be the perfect politician. He is all things to all statists.

Racists can love him because he was a racist. Abolitionists can love him because the most visible form of slavery ended about the time he died, and he is credited with ending it.

"Conservatives" can love him because he was a Republican. Liberals can love him because he acted in a "progressive" way by bringing an end to the status quo (by ending the "union" and replacing it with "The Union". He "saved" America by replacing it with The United Stated. This is like saying your life has been saved by turning you into a zombie).

Yep. Good ol' Abe Lincoln; the statists' patron saint. How disgusting he was.


Thursday, October 22, 2015

Here, let me fix that

How to solve the "mass shooting problem"- or any other social (or, rather, anti-social) problem:
Make the Zero Aggression Principle normal and expose any and all exceptions. Don't excuse violations by anyone because of their "job", position, or office.

That's all it takes.

Why wait?


Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Anti-gunners' predictability

(Previously posted to Patreon)

That feeling of dismay.

I'm sure you know it. It happens when you see yet another headline saying something about "Guns in the U.S."- and you know the author is going to repeat the same agenda-skewed lies and irrelevancies you've heard over and over and over.

Yep, that's the feeling I felt when I saw this: "Guns in the U.S.".

Michael Shermer is a frightened "libertarian", just like Scott Adams. Wishy-washy and unable to stick to principles and reality. He is happy enough to embrace libertarianish reason, unless it leads to conclusions he doesn't want to face. In that case he'll embrace the "progressive" agenda. It makes him look more intelligent. Or so he believes.

What it actually does is expose him as a coward. He's frightened of your liberty and doesn't want to be responsible for his own defense. And that's sad.

I could go through the whole article and point out the bad assumptions, the way the "data" was milked to get the numbers to come out the way the anti-liberty bigots wanted them to come out, and point out what was purposely left out... but I've done it to similar misleading articles in the past, and so have many other people. And the "smart" quasi-libertarians won't listen anyway.

I'm sure Shermer would blame cognitive dissonance for my reaction to seeing his article. The reality is, it isn't cognitive dissonance; it's experience. I've been down this road too many times. And I have the ability to see through the rhetoric to the agenda beneath. Even his "additional thoughts" at the end of the piece expose the faulty conclusions of the rest of it- and yet he still stands by his position. I think there's a phrase for that...


"Back to the Future Day" and time travel

Long ago, before I got one of these "computer" things, and while living in a location more befitting my personality, I spent hours each and every day (after work or on my days off) sitting beside a campfire. Yes, I ignored government "burn bans" completely.

Between my house and the river was my camp. My tipi was set up there. I had my tomahawk block handy for when I felt like a bit of activity. I had my setup for processing deer skins into buckskin.

And I had my wikiup.

That's where my campfire was. In winter I would sweep away the new snow before I built my daily fire. In summer I would sometimes crawl into the wikiup to weather a mountain shower. On the floor of the wikiup was a raw elk hide, beneath which the voles had made their little half tunnels. Voles would also run along the beams inside the wikiup as I sat watching. Often, if the rain continued for very long, I would fall asleep for a while- waking up to bright sun.

I had built the wikiup using only materials collected on site. And, as an extra challenge, I had used no tools but my hands and maybe a few rocks. Not even a knife.

Generally I sat outside, on a log in front of the elk hide door of the wikiup, right beside my fire. I never used anything more modern than flint and steel to light the fire- and almost exclusively used the bow drill. Even if I was very tired- or it was raining or snowing- I couldn't bring myself to use matches or a lighter. I got very good at firemaking with all the practice.

My black powder rifle normally hung nearby on a tripod I had constructed for "storage". I usually wore my buckskin clothes while out there. Modernity of any sort seemed out of place. This was the most free I have ever felt.

I would watch rafting tourists and kayakers drift past (and sometimes get dumped into the icy cold water). The times I let them see me, they would usually just stare and forget to return my wave.

And, the fireside is where I chose to socialize. I had a couple of friends who knew this was where to find me. They would show up to sit and visit. One friend would come to tell me about the people who were after him for whatever reason, and his latest "anti-government" theories. And sometimes about his newest run-in with the local "Law". He had a lot of them.

I even helped out lost tourists. Usually lost fishermen who somehow "lost" the river while walking to a new spot to try. Or their cute wives and daughters. Never did figure out how they could lose the river. But, I enjoyed helping the occasional Damsel in Distress find her way back to her family group. Thoughts of shooting people for trespassing never entered my mind.

Well, maybe that's not totally correct. Sometimes rafters/kayakers would beach and poop in my "yard" (in the woods) near the river. There are drawbacks to everything.

Sitting beside that campfire is also how I spent midnight when the calendar rolled over from 1999 to 2000. That night I had no idea my time there was quickly running out.

I guess I am just thinking lately of how drastically my life has changed in "only" 15 years.

Marty McFly and his DeLorean have nothing on me. It's October 21, 2015- the "future" day he supposedly visited in Back to the Future 2. A good day to think about time. I honestly feel like a time traveler most of the time. Maybe now you can understand why.

View out the door of the wikiup

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Appeal of statism understandable

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 18, 2015)

Since it’s a good idea to try to understand the opposition, I try to understand non-libertarians.

I’m not speaking of those who are not part of the Libertarian Party (neither am I), but those who reject the ideas that it is wrong to use violence against those who are neither being violent nor violating property, and that it is wrong to violate property.

Ignore for now the bad guys who rob and attack. They are what they are. Instead, focus with me on those who want to be decent people, but reject the foundation which makes decency possible. Most of these substitute government for principle.

I understand the appeal of statism- the belief that all people should be governed by other people- which is separate from the belief that people should control (govern) their own behavior.

There are bad people out there. Some people want to feel safe from them, and think governments, laws, and enforcers can create safety. They believe the benefits of governing outweigh the risks, and that freelance bad guys are a greater risk than are people to whom power is given- people drawn from the same population known to contain bad guys. They pretend bad guys won't be attracted to a position of power where they can do the bad things they desire, but with "authority" to give their behaviors a veil of legitimacy. Besides, Aunt Tilly feels safer this way.

I understand, but think they are mistaken and Utopian.

I also understand the attraction of nationalism. It's nice to feel a sense of belonging to a group; something bigger than oneself. Instead of actually accomplishing things personally, the nationalist can say "We beat the Commies!" and feel pride in something he had no part in. Or even something he unwittingly monkey-wrenched, but which happened in spite of his "help".

Plus, there is always the comfort of familiar rituals and symbols. Humans crave rituals and create them around the most mundane things. They come to value the rituals more than that which the ritual originally honored. Chants are recited on cue, along with soundbites with which they have been trained to respond when nationalist beliefs are challenged.

And symbols? People love them. They design flags, seals, buildings, offices, titles, and whatever else they can dream up to worship- then incorporate those symbols into the rituals.

So, yes, I understand, but I don't agree. It would all be funny if it hadn't killed around 200 million non-combatants in the 20th Century alone.


Yes, Liberty matters!

An interesting bit of information is that one of my most consistently viewed posts is from well over a year ago: Liberty matters!

I wonder why.

Maybe because people instinctively know liberty matters. Maybe because they want to make a difference where it matters. I hope they learn what liberty is, wherever they learn it, and start living it.

Once you know liberty matters, why not live like you know it?




Monday, October 19, 2015

Real life conversations

In real life conversations I am almost never the one to bring up politics or ethics first. If I do bring them up, you can be sure someone just said something absurd or evil in my presence. Or, rarely, asked my opinion.

I just don't care enough about politics to bring it up, and ethics... well, talking about it doesn't really make much sense. Just live it and see how it works out.

In fact, often I try to avoid talking about either one when people want to bring up the subject. I value peace, and telling people their views are evil is not conducive to peace. But lying to them in that case doesn't feel right, either.



Sunday, October 18, 2015


Having some very distracting financial issues, which are closely related to medical issues (not all mine). Writing does help keep me balanced (or distracted), but I am hoping the quality isn't suffering. If so, I apologize and will try to do better.

I hope you don't mind that I will be appending this link for a while: GoFundMe?


Unearned legitimacy

A problem which infects even libertarians is the attitude that government deserves some sort of honor or respect. They treat it as something "important" or dignified. As though it deserves attention beyond the attention you would pay to a wasp in your car. That it is somehow serious business rather than childish bullying. They lend it an unearned legitimacy.

Poo on all that.

That's the "inside the beltway" superstition that "respectable" libertarian organizations and publications fall victim to. Sometimes even individuals do, too. It's not befitting of libertarians; it's embarrassing.

Sure, you may need to feign respect to keep from being caged or killed when a bully has the drop on you, but remember it's just an act on your part. It's self defense. The bully is still just a bully.


Saturday, October 17, 2015

Marching to the beat of a different drummer is still marching

Over the course of my life I have known a few people who I believe went off the deep end. A couple of people I really loved became conspiracy hypothesists. Some were just paranoid- believing that someone was out to get them when it was obvious to me that they were victims of their own actions. In one case the guy was just the victim of his brain chemistry.

Because of this I am careful to watch (and test) my own beliefs.

It doesn't mean I am immune to seeing a conspiracy where none exists. I might even miss seeing one that is real. I am not likely to believe things just because everyone says they are so, or because I am called names for not agreeing with someone who claims to have special insight. But conspiracy hypotheses which fail science, observation, and reason don't have a chance with me. I probably won't argue about them- I could be missing something- but most conspiracy hypotheses have gigantic holes that get ignored or poorly patched.

There seems to be a growing tendency to embrace pseudoscience as a way to "buck the system". The problem is, the ideas being rejected probably didn't come from "the system". While "establishment scientists" may use certain ideas, they probably are not the ones to have come up with them. Just as one example, people had figured out that the Earth was roughly spherical thousands of years ago- without NASA's help.

2+2=4 is true, even though it is taught in government schools and used by IRS employees when they calculate how much to steal from you. Don't reject reality just because some bad guys also use it.

Embracing pseudoscience is not a sign you have risen above indoctrination- just that you are being indoctrinated by someone different. "Ancient knowledge" isn't preferable just because it is ancient. Discoveries are made all the time, and those discoveries, when understood, change the way smart people think about things.

It doesn't mean you are "enlightened" to believe this garbage- it means you are gullible AND not able to reason and observe (or even do simple experiments) for yourself.


Thursday, October 15, 2015

To which "state" are you referring?

"Security of a free State"? That's a ridiculous oxymoron.

You can be free in spite of a State, but you will never find freedom because of a State.

The guys who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights were so deluded on some issues it's not even funny.

But, you could use a different meaning of "State" and be accurate.

Such as, if "state" were taken to mean "condition", rewording "the Security of a free State" as "to secure a state of Freedom"- as in:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to secure a state of Freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That is one state I can get behind.


Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Fixing the past by breaking the future

(Previously posted to Patreon)

My support for a group's agenda goes in only one direction. If you are seeking to get rid of "laws" which violate someone's Rightful Liberty I am right there with you.

If, on the other hand, you seek to make new "laws" which you believe will "level the playing field" or make up for past violations, you are not going to have my support.

I may agree that "laws" or society have been violating you. Perhaps for thousands of years. And I oppose that. However I can't support you trying to turn the tables and using government to violate someone else in the name of "fairness". Becoming the same as your enemy just makes you the bad guy.

This is why I oppose "affirmative action" and all such "equality laws". New "laws" weren't necessary- just get rid of any old ones that caused the problem. By passing new "laws" you copied the violent behavior of those who violated you. By making new "laws" you demonstrate that you don't believe you are good enough to make it on your own merits, but need to force others to favor you, or to oppress those who aren't you.

It's a libertarian thing- to support someone's desire to stop being violated while opposing their chosen coercive method to achieve it.


U.S. Police State infographic

Here's one of those infographics for you.

  Police State

The right way to live

Regardless of current fashion, there really is a right way to live, and a seemingly endless number of wrong ways. Not all behaviors are equally valid- just as not all opinions are equally valid. Some are simply wrong. Maybe they are innocently misguided, or they may be willfully evil. You should be able to evaluate and judge for yourself, using reason.

How can you tell the Zero Aggression Principle, and by extension, libertarianism/anarchism is the "right way"- the ethical way- to live?

Just consider these questions:

How would the world be if everyone lived by it?
What if most people lived by it?
What if no one lived by it?

I have addressed these questions, and explored the answers, in a Patreon post.


Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Kentucky clerk’s morals fall flat

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 11, 2015)

Everyone seems to have an opinion about the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

First of all it needs to be understood that everyone has a right to live by their faith, but no one has a right to a government job — a right that can’t exist.

If a job would require you to do things you believe are wrong, don't take the job. If you hold a job and the requirements change so you would be asked to do things you believe are wrong, it is your responsibility to find a different job. No need to raise a fuss to get attention, just resign and move on. It's that simple.

This clerk's morals seem fluid. She has apparently never had a problem with processing divorces. Or with living on money forcibly extorted from the local residents. She seemingly never questioned whether it's ethical to hold a position which licenses basic human rights; activities not subject to government permission.

What if she refused to issue marriage licenses for anyone who had been previously divorced? If she were living consistently by her faith, she would not only be refusing marriage licenses for same sex couples.

What if she were Muslim and her faith forbade her issuing drivers licenses to women? Would her supporters still be standing with her decision?

This is why her claim of standing up for her morals falls utterly flat with me. Her morals seem to be a convenience, giving her an excuse for refusing to do something she doesn't want to do. It's like if I were a janitor, but claimed my morals forbade me cleaning the new toilets.

She wasn't letting anyone else in her office issue marriage licenses, either, regardless of their personal beliefs on the matter.

I don't believe in government, and certainly don't believe government has any "authority" to issue licenses for anything, including marriage. Knowing this, should I take a government job which includes issuing licenses and then refuse to do so? Should I still expect to be paid?

But jail? She should not have been jailed for refusing to do her job. It was a ridiculous penalty, calculated to cause maximum drama. If a person won't do their job, they should be fired, not caged.

None of this would be an issue if government were forced out of the marriage business- where it never had any business getting involved in the first place.
(Note: I said anyone who doesn't do their job needs to be fired. My editor said no one is "authorized" to fire Ms. Davis. So I changed the wording for the newspaper column. I put the original wording back for the blog. I still believe anyone who doesn't do what they were hired to do needs to be fired. It's not my fault the State sets itself up to fail.)


Theories, or justification?

So many "political theories" seem to only exist to justify the "statist quo".

I try to make sure my own political theory doesn't fall into the opposite trap of only existing to justify the opposite of the status quo.

So I test it. I examine it. I pick it apart in my mind. And, when it fails the test, I change it.

So far the result is that I get rid of more and more justifications for statism of any kind.

It's liberating. Give it a try.


Monday, October 12, 2015

Give them the chance

People already know they should be libertarian.

They know right from wrong. They know using violence against the nonviolent or those who aren't violating property is wrong. They know violating property is wrong.

Their only problem is they have been tricked into imagining irrational exceptions to these truths. This indoctrination has taken a lifetime to achieve. It takes one honest moment to shed.

They are probably already libertarian in their heart of hearts. The external statist shell is a mask.

By sharing libertarianism with them you are not trying to "trick them into it", you are giving them permission to be honest with themselves. To be what they already know they should be.

They may still try to fight you, but I hope you offer the chance to everyone you know anyway.


Sunday, October 11, 2015

Lies statists tell:

Not a comprehensive list. of course...

They died for your freedom.
Not all cops are bad.
You must respect the office of president, even if you don't respect the man.
Without government there would be chaos.
Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.
"This system" may not be perfect, but it's the best there is/the best there can be.
I'm not a statist; only those other guys who are nothing like me are statists.
It's for the children.
It's for the good of society.
It's for your own good.
It's a necessary evil.
Your vote counts/matters.

I'll bet you can think of more lies statists tell.


Saturday, October 10, 2015

"Good", actions, and cops

(Previously posted to Facebook)

"Good" isn't always subjective- there are certain absolutes.

It is never good to violate other people's liberty or property- except in self defense against aggression, or in defense of private property. Period. You may believe it to be "necessary", but it's not good.

If you picked the fight, it is not self defense.

If there is no individual victim, it isn't in defense of the innocent.

If your job requires you to violate other people's liberty or property, you can't be a good person while performing that job.

Police are required to violate people's life, liberty, and property by enforcing "laws" as a condition of keeping the job, and to continue receiving the paycheck (which is financed by violating property through "taxation").

Therefore, no matter how "nice" a cop may act, he can't be good and remain a cop.

There is no such thing as a "good cop".


Thursday, October 08, 2015

Giving the bullies a pat on the back

I see news about government employees and happenings as a glowing report on the exploits of beloved bullies and thugs.

To illustrate:

"In local news, Buster broke into a couple of houses over the weekend, and made a sweet haul he plans to share with the community. He intends to give back a portion of each score. Be sure and show him support whenever you run into him around town. 
"Billy Bob had a real fine rape this week. He enjoyed himself immensely and said he plans to look into the possibility of making it a regular thing. Watch out girls! (wink, wink) 
"The local mob discussed allowing residents to vote on whether they will fork over 10% of their property this next year, or 8% this year, with the amount increasing by 10% yearly thereafter. The loot will be used to expand the concentration camp on the edge of town- without which, chaos would ensue. Be sure and vote- it's your right and duty! 
"In international news, crime bosses from both sides of the Atlantic met to work out details of how they will use you as slaves and divide the spoils among themselves. They have promised each other to not take action against each other, personally, and to not rob each others slaves without working out some sort of deal first."

That is how most "news" sounds to me. It's utterly sickening that people believe it is somehow less repugnant when the bullies call themselves "government".


Wednesday, October 07, 2015

It may make you angry, but...

Here's a clue: When someone points out the silliness of your position or otherwise disagrees with your absurd claim, it isn't necessarily a sign they are angry. You may be projecting.

Statists generally seem very angry. They collapse into heaps of profanity and aggression at the slightest prodding.

But, when they see you point out the absurdity of their beliefs, they accuse you of being angry. Often in the midst of their mental breakdown.

Statism is a strange, sick religion.


Tuesday, October 06, 2015

Non-Libertarians cause of trouble

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 4, 2015)

What’s one of the fastest ways to get in serious trouble? By acting in ways libertarians warn against. Can this be right?

Aren’t libertarians supposed to be troublemakers who oppose cooperation and generosity? Aren’t they known as rugged individualists who advocate “every man for himself?”

Think again.

The heart of libertarianism is the principle that no one has the right to use violence- even gently or "for your own good"- against anyone who is neither already using violence, nor violating private property. The principle which goes hand-in-hand with this one reminds you to not violate the property of another. That's really all there is to it. Everything else is just working out details and getting rid of exceptions.

I frequently see people getting in trouble precisely because they aren't living up to libertarian principles. They initiate force- this means they use physical force first. They violate property through theft, trespassing, or by preventing the owner from using the full value of his property. They try to cheat and defraud people. Then, when the consequences come home to roost they often seem to be shocked by the turn of events.

What exactly are these behaviors which are most likely to get people into trouble? Fighting, attacking, raping, robbing, defrauding, trespassing, and murdering. All acts your libertarians friends are constantly reminding others to not commit.

Some people also get in trouble because they neglect to defend themselves from those who commit these anti-libertarian acts. Defensive violence is never wrong- even if it isn't always smart, such as when you are outnumbered or outgunned. You aren't obligated to defend yourself or others, but you'll have more respect for yourself if you do. It's usually the right thing to do.

Of course, today the other fast way to get in trouble might seem contradictory: being libertarian. Living your Rightful Liberty by doing things no one has a right to forbid or control. Things which lawmakers who lack libertarian principles have decided to declare illegal, or subject to rationing, even though those things don't violate person or property. You can't always avoid these bullies and the exceptions they pretend to carve for themselves. Beware of them.

Non-libertarians make excuses for those exceptions as long as they are committed by government employees under the excuse of "law", but it doesn't make the acts of violation right.

Do the right thing. Stay out of trouble for doing the wrong thing. Act libertarian even if you don't believe in the principles.


The most ethical way to live

(Previously posted to Patreon)

How would the world be if everyone lived by the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP)? It would be Utopia. No one would ever even debate whether an act is aggression or not since even self defense would be unnecessary. This is not a world any of us will ever experience.

What if, instead of thinking about that Utopian scenario, we just think what would happen if most people followed the ZAP most of the time? Because this is the real world you and I already exist in. Not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but with the potential to be much better.

People already understand they have no right to initiate force. Most people follow this pretty well. They buy instead of steal, and request rather than punch. People already know the ZAP is the right way to live, even if they don't know how to put it into words.

If it were not the case, even statism would quickly collapse. It is the reluctance to initiate force which keeps bullies safe. If no one were concerned about whether an act justified a violent response, no IRS agent would survive his first audit. No cop would survive his first day molesting "speeders". Yes, even tyrants and bullies rely on people following the ZAP while pretending they are exempt due to their "job".

The only way to make things better would be to stop pretending there are people and "jobs" which qualify for that imaginary exemption. Stop calling acts of theft or aggression by the statist euphemisms that seem to excuse them.

But, switching gears a bit... What if no one ever followed the ZAP? Civilization would be impossible. Society would collapse. No peaceful encounter would be possible.

Looking at these 3 possibilities clearly illustrates that to live by the Zero Aggression Principle is the most ethical way to live- bar none.


First they ignore you...

One of the quotes I see used the most often to give hope to people like you and me, is this one from Gandhi:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

What isn't mentioned in that quote is you have to be grounded in reality first. Skip that important part and "they" will probably never move beyond laughing at you. Or, if you do "win", it will be a fleeting victory.

If you are grounded in reality, you have won before they have even moved beyond ignoring you, they just don't know it yet.


Monday, October 05, 2015

Statists' false choices

Statists love the false choice:

Either accept theft and aggression, or live without roads.
Either accept theft and aggression, or see the end of education.
Either accept theft and aggression, or you'll be a helpless victim of theft and aggression. (?!?)
Either accept theft and aggression, or do without wild spaces.
Either accept theft and aggression, or say goodbye to justice.

Sorry. That isn't how reality works.


Sunday, October 04, 2015

How to be popular

Being rabidly statist is a good way to become well-respected and popular. To be looked upon with regard in your community. This is just the result of being a believer in the main religion of your locality. Of being an ardent follower.

Or even a "leader".

Being a non-believer results in marginalization. Non-believers aren't taken seriously. They are pushed aside and not given any consideration. Relegated to the position of "no one".

Statism is still the primary religion, globally. Other religions take a back seat to statism. Other religions seem to be mostly useful as excuses to prop up statism and give it a veil of legitimacy.

But, the believers are still wrong. Their religion is empty and evil. If you can lower yourself that much for popularity, I suppose you deserve it.


Saturday, October 03, 2015

Hard truths on guns

Here are some of my random thoughts on the recent college massacre, and my reactions to the knee-jerk demands of the anti-liberty bigots:

So, another mass murder in a place where guns are banned, and so the anti-liberty bigots will be blaming the gun and the people who didn't do it.

Dig in your heels and get ready for the attack of the idiots.

Added: OK, so according to some, maybe the college was "gun friendly"- at least to those with the proper state papers. Still, if your policies make it harder for good people to be armed- which is ALWAYS the result of making up rules and requiring "permits"- bad guys will still always have the upper hand. YOU have a responsibility to defend yourself in spite of onerous rules and "laws". Everywhere you go. If someone doesn't trust you with a gun (or requires "permits") they don't trust you. Don't trust them.


If you believe anti-gun "laws" will prevent murder, you haven't been paying attention.
If you believe anti-gun "laws" in other countries ended murder, you are in denial.


Here is an old post about School Shootings


What kind of "gun safety laws" do anti-liberty bigots imagine would work?
Go ahead- tell me.
Then I will explain why your suggestion would make the situation worse.

Anything that keeps guns out of the hands of a determined mass murderer will inevitably make it harder for good people to be armed. That will result in more mass murder- as well as more individual murder.

Whether the college where yesterday's massacre occurred was a "gun free" slaughter zone or not (and the reports conflict on that account), the fact is that apparently no good guys had jumped through all the artificial hoops put in place to make sure "the wrong hands" didn't have a gun. And death was the result. Because "the wrong hands" will ALWAYS be armed.

That's the reality. You can deny it or you can accept it. Reality doesn't care which- but your survival depends on you making the right choice.


The anti-gun position is delusional. The "debate" is dishonest. It is based upon false premises.

Even if anti-gun "laws" saved lives, you have zero right to forbid anyone else from owning or carrying a gun. None, whatsoever. No matter who you are.

You can't delegate to anyone else a right which doesn't exist.

If you pretend you have that right anyway, and tell a politician (or cop) to "control" other people's guns on your behalf, then you are a violator of fundamental human rights. You have become a bad guy just like the person who violates fundamental human rights by murdering. You aren't different in kind, but only in degree, from a mass murderer.

I am watching you, with suspicion, in self defense.


I understand the desire to make the world safe. It's not crazy to want that.

What is crazy is advocating things that can be shown to make the world less safe. Like anti-gun "laws".

The places in America where guns are most heavily regulated are consistently the places which are most dangerous- and the danger followed imposition of the anti-gun "laws", not the other way around.

If you figure America's murder "by gun" rate- but take those anti-gun cities out of the calculation- America's "gun murder" rate drops to one of the lowest in the world.

Places around the world where guns are banned are much more violent than America; the attackers just use tools other than guns. Is it somehow "better" to be murdered with a machete or a 2X4 or a baseball bat than with a gunshot? Only a crazy person would believe so.

If a person wants to murder, no "law" will stop them. Keeping guns away from them- even if possible- won't stop them. And, if they want to kill a lot of people, they will very likely seek out a place that advertises itself as a "gun free zone". "Gun free zones" are more honestly known as slaughter zones- they invite tragedy.

Believing anti-gun "laws" will solve anything is crazy.

It's OK to be crazy; it isn't OK to impose your crazy on others. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own reality.

The reality is that anti-gun "laws" are a danger to those who obey them.


Looking at "taxation is theft" from both sides

(Previously published in The Libertarian Enterprise)

Statists hate the "libertarian shibboleth" of "Taxation is theft". It makes them lose their minds and fling poo before running away screaming profanity.

As amusing as making them that crazy is, it may not be constructive... so, let's really examine the idea.
"Theft" is the act of taking property that belongs to another without their consent- with or without the threat of violence.
"Theft" is almost universally condemned. No one claims the future use of the stolen property justifies the theft.
"Taxation" is the act of taking property (money) that belongs to someone else without their consent- enforced by the threat of violence.
"Taxation" is almost universally justified by imagining what the stolen money will (might) be used for.
Therefore, "taxation" is theft.

Or... let's turn it around and look at the argument from the statist perspective:

"Theft is the taking of property non-voluntarily.
Taxation is voluntary; people would pay even without penalties.
Therefore, taxation is not theft."

Which one holds up better to scrutiny? How true are the individual premises and conclusions in each?


Thursday, October 01, 2015

Professionalism in action

If someone violates you in a "professional" way, is that somehow less of a violation?

I occasionally see copsuckers defending police by saying that in every encounter they have ever had with them, the cops acted very "professional".

I just can't see this as a good thing.

I'm sure many hangmen were very professional toward their innocent victims.

Same goes for Nazi gas chamber attendants.

Being "professional" while committing evil isn't a justification. It doesn't make the act you are committing ethical or moral. It just means you are able to violate others without it "getting to you" and making you behave like a human being.