Sunday, January 31, 2016

Lord of all nanobots

I don't believe in intellectual property, but I wish I did, so I act as though I do.

I do this because I respect the efforts of those who create, and I want them rewarded for what they have done.

But I still see it as wishful thinking.

If intellectual property were a real thing, a person who invented self-replicating nanobots would own the rights to them all, no matter who bought some from him, no matter how many generations removed from him the nanobots you are talking about were, and no matter how many there were throughout the Universe.

What would make sentences different than nanobots, concerning IP?

If intellectual property were a real thing, a person would own all rights to a new dog breed he worked a lifetime to create. He would own all the offspring of the dogs he had sold- on through the years and generations.

Both of these examples are the same as saying the author or composer owns the book or song he created.

It would be nice, but it just isn't reality.


Saturday, January 30, 2016

Giving the bad guys a helping hand, through rules

There are useless rules, and there are harmful rules. And by rules I mean policies, or laws, or whatever people call words strung together in an attempt to control others.

I would like to call useless rules "pointless rules", but I can see the point of some of the useless rules, even as I also see that they can't fulfill their point.

Impaired driving laws are useless. If you don't believe me, just ask my daughter Cheyenne. Oh, wait, you can't because she died in spite of "laws" against drunk driving. The rules didn't kill her, they were just powerless to prevent her death. I wouldn't claim the rules against drunk driving are harmful- at least until you dig deeper and see how those rules influence behavior in ways that actually make innocent people less safe on the roads- but they certainly aren't very helpful. And the ways they are imposed and enforced are quite clearly harmful. They give justification to the weak-minded for some of the worst police state abuses outside of airports.

But, on the surface, laws against driving drunk aren't necessarily harmful. Cheyenne wouldn't have been safer if she had also been driving drunk that morning, so although those who control, and would claim to own, the roads did nothing to protect her, they aren't accomplices in her death, either. Suing them for failing to prevent her death would be useless.

Not so where "no gun zones" are concerned. The rules that establish those areas are worse than useless. They are actively harmful.

Not only will such rules do nothing to prevent a bad guy- who would be a rule-breaker by definition- from ignoring the rule and bringing a gun, especially if he wants to murder people, it would prevent those good guys who want to obey rules- even bad rules- from bringing their guns. In this case suing those who own or control the "gun free" area where a murder happens would be the right thing to do. They may not have pulled the trigger, but they are willing accomplices to any murderer who takes advantage of the killing ground they established for him.

You had better believe that if any of my loved ones were ever murdered in a "gun free zone", I would do my best to sue the rule-makers into poverty. If it discouraged just one other rule-maker from making a rule to turn his venue into a slaughter zone it would be worth it.

If you forbid guns in some area you control, you are directly responsible when anyone is murdered there. And I hope someone makes you suffer for your foolishness.


Thursday, January 28, 2016

Deserving of death?

If you don't believe someone deserves to die for what they are doing, how wrong can you really believe their acts to be?

I ask this of myself as much as I ask it of you.

I don't believe a teenager cutting across my yard deserves to be killed for trespassing.
I don't believe someone deserves to be killed for v*ting.
I don't believe people who believe government to be necessary deserves to die for that wrongheaded belief.

But I do believe they are wrong in every case I mentioned above.

And, I do believe many wrongdoers can rightly be killed by their victims (or intended victims).

Maybe the reason has something to do with "proportionality", although I'm not a firm believer in that concept either. Or, at least the weight I give some wrongs doesn't seem to align well with the weight others give them.

And, yet... statists. Every single little "offense" against their religion is ultimately punishable by death. But they believe they are the "reasonable ones".


Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Misdirected blame- government is failure

If your best argument against your opponents is to try to blame your own failures on them, you might be a statist.

I sometimes get amused at how often statists try to pin the failures of their religion on those of us who don't buy into their cult.

The Flint water disaster is a current example. Look how many times recently this disastrous failure of government is pointed to as what would happen if libertarians were "in charge" of supplying water.

Somalia- a case of way too much government meddling- is another example. I'm not sure how too much government, fighting to govern people who want no part of it, became anarchist dystopia in the minds of statists, but it has.

I'm sure there have been other examples I'm not thinking of right now. It's the best they can do. It's the only argument they have: to point to their endless failures and try to pin it on us.

I would laugh, if so many people didn't parrot their insanity.

But, back to the Flint, Michigan water problem. Why do statists believe clean water can only come from a centralized government facility? Do they miss the fact of all the bottled water out there, provided by companies large and small, all over the world? What about the water filters you can buy to clean water for yourself? Both household scale and individual.

Centralization is a way to guarantee BIG failure- to hurt lots of people at one time.

Decentralization limits harm by giving people a choice. Don't like that the water from your faucet smells bad and looks like murky tea? Stop buying the nasty water and buy good water from someone else.

And don't make the case that the government water is "free", because you know it isn't. You ARE buying it. And, by buying it through government, you are forced to pay for it even if you decide to buy clean water elsewhere. That's the only reason government can keep raking in the money for failure: succeed or fail, you have no choice but to keep paying. Just like government schools- another spectacular failure we are supposed to fear the lack of. And police.

The failures of all these are not reasons why we must keep settling for them, it is an illustration of why choice is better than compulsion.

They are testimony to the utter stupidity of continuing to keep government around and paying for it.

Even though its supporters want you believe its failure can be blamed on Liberty.


Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Wishing good will to liberty lovers

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 25, 2015. Merry Christmas.)

In this season of “Peace on Earth, good will toward men,” ask yourself if you are supporting the opposite.

Liberty activist Larken Rose points out that so many who say they want “peace on Earth” still support war-mongering politicians, and while talking about “good will toward men” they advocate widespread authoritarian aggression.

He also brings up how people "repeat a story about a baby being born in an animal's food trough after the baby's parents were forced to travel great distances in order to be registered and taxed... while condoning that everything be registered and taxed."

If you are under the impression you can find peace and good will through government, you may fall for anything. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.

If you seek peace on Earth, don't attack anyone, and don't support those who do. Peace is never aggressive; only defensive. To have peace means to be ready, willing, and able to defend yourself and others from those who don't want peace. However, you aren't defending yourself if you invade someone's home, order them around, and attack them because you believe they are a threat when they resist your meddling. If this is your idea of defense, you are confused and working against peace on Earth.

If you want good will toward men, stop treating people as they would rather not be treated. It means treating people as potential friends unless they give you a good reason to do otherwise, and then just staying out of their way as long as they let you.

It means helping out when you can, if your help is welcome- without harming anyone else in the process.

Those who think welfare is the same as generosity need to learn you can't be generous with something which isn't yours to give. It is generous to give of your own time or money; it is slavery to force someone to work for someone else, and theft to force them to hand over a percentage for the "common good". If your plan to help others relies on armed government employees and threats of fines or imprisonment, you obviously don't understand "helping".

Peace on Earth, good will to men. Live it by minding your own business, understanding what's your business and what isn't, and respecting where your rights begin and end. Then stop supporting those who do the opposite, whatever their flimsy justifications.

Merry Christmas to all peaceful, good people everywhere. The non-reformed Grinches are on their own.

I am not a "left libertarian" for the exact same reason I am not a "right libertarian".

Regardless of claims to the contrary, "left" and "right" are incompatible with liberty.

Some months ago I ran across this: Why I Am a Left Libertarian. As I often do with things that attempt to revive the zombie of "right vs left" I shrugged and promptly forgot it.

But, recently someone brought it to my attention again and asked me to address it.

So, I will.

I know a lot of people who call themselves "left libertarians" hark back to the origins of the idea of political "right vs left" to show why libertarianism is always of the "left". But I point back to those origins to demonstrate exactly why I am neither.

And here, taken from that column, is the important point:

" was in the French Legislative Assembly in the fall of 1791 that the terms Right and Left were first used in this political sense. As the Durants tell it, when the assembly convened, the 'substantial minority dedicated to preserving the monarchy. . .occupied the right section of the hall, and thereby gave a name to conservatives everywhere.' The liberals, meanwhile, 'sat at the left.'"

Did you see that? Here it is again:

"Some fifty-odd years later, after another French Revolution (the one that took place in 1848) had unseated the last French king, Louis Philippe, the same seating arrangement was revived for the newly elected legislative assembly of the Second Republic. As has often been noted, two of the newly elected legislators who sat together on the left side of that assembly in 1848 and 1849 were the free market economist and publicist for free trade Frederic Bastiat and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first man ever to publicly declare himself an anarchist."
Do you see the problem?

"Right" and "left" are notions reserved for those who want to govern you, or at least play the governing game. Maybe they want to govern you toward liberty, but they are still working to use government- the enemy of Rightful Liberty- to free you. How is that working out?

If you fall for the idea of "right" and "left" you aren't nearly as liberated as you could be. There is authoritarianism, also known as bullying, and there is libertarianism- also known as self-ownership, or "everything voluntary". No government involved. Liberty is not of the "right" or "left". It is superior to the methods of those who would govern- the tactics of the bullies.

So, call yourself what you want, but I am not a part of the "Left" nor of the "Right".


Monday, January 25, 2016

Don't be a Naxi

Naxi- A 21st Century authoritarian, police state apologist. Highly nationalistic. A fan of cops and the military, seeing them as incapable of doing wrong (other than a few obvious and inconvenient "bad apples").

Xenophobic; suspicious of "them", whoever they may be.

Loves government institutions as long as they are being run by those they want running them, and are doing what the individual Naxi believes they should be doing.

Drawn to government "jobs", and blindly supportive of them even when not employed by government.

Can often be identified by their mating calls, which include: "If you hate government, move to Somalia", "Love it or leave it", "Taxation is the price we pay for civilization".

Not to be confused in any way with "Nazi", because that might trigger those who misuse Godwin's Law in a way which protects the bad guys from valid comparison.

You and I are going wherever history takes us. Basically just going along for the ride, like it or not. We can't change that.

What we can try to do is stir up some eddies to affect where history goes. Stir things up a little. Try to have an effect. It may not work, but you never know. At least it gives you something to do in the meantime.

Even minding your own business and just taking care of your day-to-day life will have some kind of effect. So, be content to do that if that's what you feel is the best you can do.

Since you can never tell where any action will push history, I recommend you make sure to do the right thing every time. Then let history flow where it may. Whatever comes of it, you did the right thing.


Sunday, January 24, 2016

Not every rule has exceptions

I just bumped into another of this guy's videos and in it he gets so close to being sensible this time. Much better than that other video I watched years ago, yet he can't quite make that last leap toward being right. It is frustrating.

He talks about some instances where rules were ignored because the alternative of following the rules would have been dumb or wrong. And, I agree, sometimes you have to ignore the rules.

And then he falls into a gaping pit.

He says "A wise person knows when and how to make the exception to every rule."

So, "wise" people know when rape is good. When slavery is needed. When theft is justified.

Those pesky principles that say otherwise!

I am so glad I am not "wise" by his estimation, because, he equates evil with wisdom.

Now, if he didn't claim every rule needs exceptions, I could agree.

Counterfeit rules don't need to be followed. Even some good rules need to be ignored sometimes due to circumstances. But not every rule.

You have no right to initiate force- but that doesn't alter the fact that you might want to push someone out of the way of an out-of-control bus. This isn't an exception to the rule- you still have no right, but you choose whether to step outside of what you have a right to do if you believe it is worth it- and you accept the consequences. Acting in this way isn't an exception to the rule, it is part of it.


Saturday, January 23, 2016

When boldness isn't

Many years ago, in one of the less pleasant places I have lived, there was a rash of convenience store robberies.

The sheriff took bold action by stationing armed deputies in the back of random convenience stores. Robbers couldn't be sure if the store they were planning to hold up was one of the stores picked that day or not.

According to the narrative as I remember it, the robberies pretty much stopped. If that's accurate, it is a good thing. But...

The problem is, the sheriff's act wasn't bold. It was more of the same. Just more armed government employees instead of the real solution: reminding people of their right (and I would say, duty) to be self-responsible armed individuals.

Instead of some minor percentage of convenience stores having an armed defender, almost all of them could have been protected. Without paying overtime to any tax junkie.

The sensible solution to just about everything is so clear, but it always proves the uselessness of government, so it will never be advanced by statists.


Thursday, January 21, 2016

In the long run, government is its own greatest enemy.

It can't exist without making enemies of the good people.

It can't exist without attracting the bad people.

This isn't sustainable, and it's why governments always fall eventually. (So far, to always be replaced by another in the ultimate act of Utopian wishful thinking.)

If you believe yourself to be a good person, yet you support government, or have become a part of it, you need to re-examine yourself. There's a disconnect there somewhere. Either you aren't as good as you thought, or you are seriously out of place.


Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Murder, for whatever reasons

Murder is murder. It is the killing of someone who isn't violating the person or property of anyone- the killing of an innocent person.

That doesn't change if you do it for God and Country.

I doesn't change it into non-murder if you are a cop and kill someone for not complying with your orders fast enough to suit you. Or for choosing to run from someone they quite reasonably see as a threat. Or for striking back when approached by someone who, by the "uniform", proclaims gang membership and the associated history of aggression.

It doesn't change it into something less if you go with a military force to some other part of the world and kill people who are trying to repel the invaders.

It doesn't have loopholes for "executing" a person who was convicted of a crime they didn't commit, through deception and fudged crime lab results.

It doesn't matter if you believe your God says you must kill those who don't believe the same as you do.

If you intend to murder- whatever you choose to call it- I hope your intended victim or someone coming to their aid kills you first. Every single time. No exceptions.


Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Most confused on human rights

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

Most people’s understanding of human rights is upside down and backward.

The question isn’t whether you have the right to own and to carry a gun or a sword; drive a car regardless of license or registration; make, sell, or buy meth; use your property as you see fit; smoke Cannabis; write, sing, or say whatever words you want to express; open a business; or anything else that has been claimed at one time or another to be a right.
The point is no one- regardless of any justification- has the right to forbid you to do any of those things. All real rights are a right to not have something done to you.

Confusing the issue of rights is a way to control your thoughts and keep you thinking inside the box.

If people actually understood rights, the debate would be turned on its head; it would stop being about what you have a right to do, and become about what others have no right to do to you.

This is why the imaginary right to govern and control others can't exist and therefore can't be delegated to anyone under any conditions- it is based on someone doing to others things they have no right to do.

Most people still believe in this kind of imaginary authority, though, and grasping sociopaths are eager to take advantage of this primitive, superstitious belief and gain political power- or to get hired. Government extremists want to make you see rights as privileges; things to be doled out as rewards, or rented from bureaucrats. No one can demand you license a right without becoming the villain, themselves.

Anyone who claims to have such power is admitting to being a bully.

The only things you have no right to do are those things which violate the person or property of another. Violate, not offend. This means just about every "law" is stepping outside what anyone has a right to do by forbidding things which don't violate person, property, or mutually voluntary choice. You have no right to make up "laws" of this sort, and doing so anyway makes you the offender.

However, your right- for example- to own and to carry a gun doesn't make me obligated to buy you one, nor pay for your ammunition. No one has a right to stand in your way of providing it for yourself, but that's as far as it goes.


What should government do?

(Previously posted to Patreon.)

What should government do?

That is the question that drives politics. And it's a stupid question.

Once you understand the nature of The State- what most people mean when they use the word "government"- you understand there is only one way to answer the question.

Government should do nothing other than get out of the way and stop. Stop everything.

Stop making up "laws" that violate life, liberty, and property. Stop enforcing the "laws" already on the books. Stop existing altogether.

But people like to argue over what they believe government should do. They mistake this passion for being informed and enlightened. Then they can argue over different policies and outcomes. They can hate each other for the choices they would make. Choices no one has any business making.

Slightly more honest people might say "I don't know" when asked "What should the government do about.... whatever?" They might believe they don't have enough information to make an intelligent argument for what government should do about everything. But you can only say that if you intentionally stay ignorant. You have all the data you need.

Aggression is wrong. Theft is wrong. Government can't exist without aggression and theft- without those it becomes something other than government. So, government is wrong. Government shouldn't. Anything. Ever. Period.

Saying "I don't know" in answer to this question is an attempt to avoid responsibility. An attempt to avoid being scorned for doing the right thing.

I'm sorry if you can't see how your pet issue could be solved without a gang relying on theft and aggression to solve it, but that's your failing, not mine. Good luck outgrowing that..

People fret over the oddest things

Such as hierarchies.

People who worry about hierarchies, and who believe them to be incompatible with anarchy, bewilder me.

There are legitimate hierarchies and illegitimate ones.

If I hire you to do a specific job for me, my insistence on you doing that job is a legitimate hierarchy.

If you are elected into some position and claim that gives you the "authority" to order me around, that is an illegitimate hierarchy.

If I can't specify certain outcomes in exchange for my paying you, then I'm not going to pay you. In fact, I won't trade with you at all- "pay" doesn't have to mean only money. It doesn't mean I am "over" you in any way, but it means we agreed that I would give you something in exchange for something else. I am not exploiting you unless I force you into an arrangement where you aren't willing to be. In which case self defense seems to be in order, not whining over hierarchies.


Monday, January 18, 2016

Keep v*ting- I'm sure it will work next time

How can people believe v*ting can change the direction of government in any real way?

And how can they believe the outcome represents the will of the majority? Or that just because the majority wants something it should be forced on everyone? Do they believe any outcome is OK as long as it wins the v*te?

Let's put the reality of v*oting to the test. I touched on this in one of my newspaper columns a while back.

Let's say there's been a plane crash, with 20 survivors. Maybe this happened in a very remote area, perhaps as a result of an EMP, so there's no hope of being found through modern technology. Whatever the reason, just imagine the chance of a rescue coming any time soon is very slim.

After escaping the wreckage you find there are a dozen survivors who are able to walk. Do you try to walk out to be rescued or do you sit and wait for rescuers to show up? Some of those who wouldn't have a chance of walking out could still get around well enough to help those left behind- even if they'd rather not be left.

It's probably better to stick together, so how should you decide whether everyone should stay or go? If you believe in v*ting, you may decide to let the majority decide- and follow the government rules established for elections- maybe skipping the whole "v*ter ID" thing.

Two of those survivors are too young to get a v*te. One guy doesn't speak the language of the others, and doesn't know what's being discussed so he doesn't get to v*te. Two of the survivors admit they are former felons, so obviously they don't get to weigh in. So that leaves 7 who are allowed to v*te on whether to walk out of the crash site or stay put. If the v*te runs 4 to 3 in favor of walking out, how is the best way to handle this? Sure maybe one of those who v*ted to stay put will go along with the majority v*te- humans can be very cooperative even when it is not in their best interests.Then you'll have 5 v*ters voluntarily leaving the site.

Should the fate of all be decided by 25% of the group? What if, like in all things political, the actual deciders are a much tinier percentage than even that? How small a minority of the group- even if they are the majority of v*ters- should get to make decisions that will be forced on all?

V*ting is a sick way to settle things. Almost nothing should ever be subject to a v*te- and rights and liberty are never among them.

If you v*te you are agreeing to play by the rules bad people have laid out for you. You are agreeing to abide by the results. Some say you have no right to complain if you don't v*te- that's not even close. If anything, those who complain after agreeing to play a rigged game and losing, look hypocritical when they complain that it didn't go the way they wanted.

You do what you want, but v*ting lends an air of legitimacy to the rigged political game. If it could change anything it would be illegal. But keep v*ting and pretending you are "doing something". I'm sure you can v*te back liberty any year now.


Sunday, January 17, 2016

Can you learn from alternate history?

I have been watching The Man in the High Castle on Amazon (thanks to Claire Wolfe and her free Amazon Prime deal).

It is kind of dark and disturbing. Makes me appreciate the crumbs of liberty I'm still able to find here and there in the US Police State, and reminds me that things could always be worse.

One odd thing I noticed about my reaction to watching the show is how refreshing it feels to see Nazi swastikas displayed openly rather than hidden.

No, I am no fan of Nazis, but I get tired of uncomfortable truths being hidden from view. To the point that swastikas- even though they have been around for thousands of years and really have almost nothing to do with Nazis when you see the big picture of deep history- are swept under the rug by polite society.

Evil exists. Sometimes it flies a Nazi flag, more often these days it flies some other State flag. I do believe some day the US federal flag will be seen the same way the Nazi flag is seen today- in fact I believe all State flags will eventually be seen in that light. Probably no time soon, but if you see things only in terms of your lifetime you're missing almost everything. A Nazi flag is no more and no less offensive to me than any other National Flag. They are all based on the same lie.

Hide evil and it grows. Expose it to the light of day and make people look right at it and maybe you can help make it wither. The Man in the High Castle is really good at shining the light on evil.

So, yes, seeing the Nazi swastikas everywhere on the show seems to be a good thing. To me.

If you pay attention you might even notice parallels between that fictional 1962 and the real 2016 USA. And notice where the eddies of history seem to be taking us. If you see where things seem to be going, maybe you can prevent it- or at least prepare for it.

I recommend the show.


Saturday, January 16, 2016

Silly Season in full swing

It's the silly season.

Political passions are heating up and even those who ought to know better are getting caught up.

I see people who will support liberty one moment, and then beg for a slave master the next moment. Or, try to convince you that "Candidate X" is worse than "Candidate Z".

Did I say "silly"? I meant "sad".

Yes, sad.

And others are even worse.

It's very sad watching political addicts grasping at every weak straw, claiming this or that is "The End" of the puppetician they hate, or this or that shows the puppetician they worship is just about to break away from the pack and bring them a win.

And believing there's a difference worth a gram of copper between the different candidates is denial in action.

You have better things to spend your life on. I mean, if that spitting contest brings you joy, go ahead, but don't mistake politics for "doing something" useful.


Friday, January 15, 2016

Various opportunities to help

Just a reminder of the variety of ways you can help keep my financial head above water (or within reach of a snorkel, at least):

You can order patches from me, and you can order my books.
You can donate to my GoFundMe.
You can subscribe to this blog or my Patreon page.
You can send me Bitcoin.
You can walk up to me and hand me FRNs, silver, or gold.
You can "engage" with my YouTube videos.
There may be other ways I'm not thinking of.

I am still stunned by the help I got when Cheyenne died, and I'll never forget it.

I appreciate all those who help. I don't blame those who don't or can't.

Thank you all.


Thursday, January 14, 2016

It's a flavorful world

But not all flavors are delicious. Some, like the many flavors of stupidity, are disgusting.

Stupidity's flavors include:


Any "ism" that elevates some above anyone else- not for achievements but because of accidents of birth or environment qualifies as stupid.

All humans have equal and identical rights. It doesn't matter who you are, where you were born, what you believe, etc. It only matters what you do in that if you attack someone, or violate their property, they have the absolute human right to use force to stop you. That doesn't elevate them above you; it is a course you choose and consequences you set into motion. Suck it up.


Wednesday, January 13, 2016

"Progressive poster boy"

A few days ago, while visiting a local convenience store, I saw a car that was the perfect caricature of "progressivism".

It was, of course, a hybrid. From Illinois.

The back was covered in "progressive" bumper stickers. Pro-Sanders, anti-Trump, touchy feely things about loving everyone as long as they aren't "conservative" or a gun owner. OK, that last bit is hyperbole, but just barely. I'm sure you have seen cars like this.

The inside of the car was filled with all sorts of stuff, including fuzzy blankets and a big, expensive-looking camera sitting on top of the pile in the passenger seat. Almost against the window.

I wonder if that camera would have still been there when Mr. Feels returned had the car been parked in one of those "progressive paradises" like Chicago. I have my doubts.

I wish I had thought of taking a picture of it all before the guy got back in his car.

Speaking of the driver- the guy looked like he could have been Bernie Sanders' brother.

I would actually have liked to talk to him. If I could have done so without either laughing or getting angry that such ignorance goes unchallenged.

As I walked back to my car I went slightly out of my way and stooped to pick up a piece of litter on the ground (as I am in the habit of doing) in front of his car, and saw him sitting there not looking at me. I wondered if he noticed what I had done, and what he thought if he did. Because, for all his "progressive" ways, he had stepped over the litter in order to get in his car. He failed to be the change he wished to see.

I measured him by the standard he espoused by his bumper stickers, and he came up short.

What did I learn from him?

I must always be aware that others will be watching and judging me by the standards I espouse. Being human, I will occasionally fail. I need to be aware and apologize when I do. And always do better.


Tuesday, January 12, 2016

I will not enable the anti-gunners

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

Interesting times, indeed. The New York Times recently went on record — on its front page — calling for a civil war.

The president, many politicians, and celebrities are jumping on the civil war bandwagon, too.

They would deny doing so, but they would be lying. If they honestly believe they aren’t asking for a civil war they demonstrate staggering ignorance and cluelessness.

Come to think of it, that might be the case.

Because, admit it or not, that's the result of demanding more anti-gun "laws". Especially when they demand outright bans and confiscations. Unless they are under the impression that gun owners will gladly hand over all the newly banned tools. If they believe that's how it would go, they don't know history very well- certainly not as well as gun owners do. If they offer gift cards or money in trade, people will turn over what they always do: the broken relics; holding on to those they can still use effectively.

So, they want a war, but are they willing to fight it themselves? To bleed, kill, and die? Or do they expect others to die on the altar of their cause? You know the answer.

When gun owners fail to line up to turn their property over to the State, what next? Enforcement, of course. How do these war-lovers believe the new anti-gun "laws" would be enforced? The same way all the current illegal, unethical, and unconstitutional anti-gun "laws" are enforced: by government employees armed with guns. "Gun control" advocates aren't really anti-gun, they are against your guns. And mine.

They are also not against violence, despite all their hysterical pleas, since all their proposed "laws" would be enforced (and financed) violently.

Anti-gun advocates are liars, trying to foment a civil war in the name of safety and reasonableness. It would result in the opposite of safety, and is the furthest thing from reasonable.

Yes, let's start a war in our neighborhoods "for the children". A war which, if my side lost, would leave families defenseless against the bad guys who will never give up their weapons. A war which wouldn't result in "safer streets", but in bad guys facing no serious opposition.

A country which becomes one big "no guns" zone would follow in the footsteps of the "no guns" zones we already suffer: slaughter houses made ready for people intent on killing. That's no future I want to enable. What about you?


Stand up for what's right

I am libertarian. That means I advocate human liberty.

I am a Voluntaryist; I believe all human interactions should be voluntary.

I am an abolitionist- I oppose slavery in all its forms.

I am an anarchist because I don't believe in anyone governing others for any reason.

If you pay attention you might notice that these are all ways of saying the same thing.

This isn't "conservative", "liberal", "right", "left", or any other of the pigeonholes people will try to stuff you into. It's much more important than that. It is the difference between right and wrong.

Liberty is the freedom to do what you have a right to do. You have the right to do absolutely anything which doesn't violate the equal and identical rights of anyone else. Laws can't change what you have a right to do.

Laws and governments impose people on you who you wouldn't seek out voluntarily. They violate your right of association by forcing you to deal with people who add nothing of value to your life, but who instead devalue your life.

If you come to me on an equal footing, without seeking to violate my life, liberty, or property, then you are not approaching me as government. If you come at me and intend to violate me in some way, you may call yourself government or you may be called a criminal, but your actions are the same. You can either respect liberty and voluntary interactions, reject governing others and oppose slavery, or you can be the problem.

You can't be government or support "laws" without being a bad guy. A bully. Yes, it's still the popular way; the common way; the vulgar way. And it is wrong.

But you can choose. Make the right choice, not the popular one. Don't choose to be the bad guy.

Be libertarian, Voluntaryist, abolitionist, and an anarchist. Stand up for what's right.


Monday, January 11, 2016

Fantasy elections

Politics and elections. What a ridiculous mess.

It wouldn't be so bad if elections were like sports.

Let the fans cheer, scream, hate, and obsess, while the rest of us ignore them and aren't affected in any real way by their silliness. Let all results be binding only to those who choose to participate in the circus. The rest of us can ignore it all and not be in any danger for having better things to pay attention to.

For that matter, don't they have "fantasy sports"? All politics should be moved into the fantasy realm where the rest of us can forget it even exists.


Sunday, January 10, 2016

How to get more guns...

...under any confiscatory scheme

Inferior substitutions

(Previously posted to Patreon)

It's interesting to me how words get used to mean something they don't mean.

I always thought mums were flowers- specifically, Chrysanthemums. I just discovered this year that "mums" apparently don't mean the flower anymore, but a customized cluttered ribbon thing you can wear on your jacket to some sportsball event. Yes, I am out of the loop where sportsball rituals are concerned.

Then, there is "fleece". Fleece is wool, like a wool blanket or a sheepskin with the wool still attached. But now when most people talk of fleece, they mean something made of fuzzy polyester. Yuck.

The same goes for "freedom".

Besides confusing it for liberty, they get confused about what it is altogether.

Some particularly nasty politicians claim it means doing what government bullies decide you will do.

Others mean they can do anything to you they feel like, and you are obligated to put up with it without doing anything about it. Their "freedom" goes only one direction.

Some see the slavery inherent in the police state and cheer it as a manifestation of freedom. TSA gropedowns = Freedom at work!

You can use a word to mean whatever it means to you (we all do that anyway), but it helps if you define your word, especially when you use it to mean something it clearly has never meant before.

You have the "freedom" to pin a "mum" to your "fleece" sportsball jacket and get a gropedown before entering the stadium. Hooray for freedom!


Request: history book suggestions

I had a request for more information; inspired, I believe, by this older post: History? Their-story.

What are your favorite books on history- especially pertaining to stateless societies?

What about reading suggestions (particularly in book form) about other more liberty-leaning societies- either past or present?

The world is full of books pushing the statist agenda- including all the books (history and otherwise) used in schools. We know how indispensable government employees believe their club to be. Let's get the other side for a change.

If anyone has suggestions, post them in the comments- it would be a good resource for the future.

Thank you!


Saturday, January 09, 2016

Choosing poorly

Why would anyone choose evil?
Why choose aggression?
Who could believe it's OK to be a cop, military, mugger, or tax collector?
What kind of sick mind could justify that choice?

Some would say it's the lazy choice, but in most cases it is harder to be evil. I know, because I'm too lazy to bother with the trouble of being evil. I'd rather not make difficulties for myself on down the line- aggression will always do that.

Maybe short-sightedness could explain it. Evil looks easier right now, and if you don't consider the future (as I have my doubt about aggressors being able to do) you might not think about the consequences that could result.

Add greed to the short-sightedness and you might have some ethical homunculi believing evil is a good way to get ahead. If you look at those who are politically connected and evil (but I repeat myself), it sure looks like it works. But you never know when your flavor of statism will suddenly go out of style and you'll find yourself against a wall, unable to be comforted by your bank balance.

In the world of fiction, evil is often glamorous. Politicians, cops, and robbers look flashy and cool. People forget that this is fiction. The real world isn't that way. Even if the glamour does sometimes rub off onto the real world bad guys from association with their fictional kin.

I'll always prefer those who quietly choose to not be aggressors over those who believe they should be celebrated for being evil.


Friday, January 08, 2016

Let your conscience be your guide (Mike Vanderboegh)

No, I can't afford it. Yes, I've done it anyway.

What? Sent some money to Mike Vanderboegh.

I have had my disagreements with him over the years. Most I kept to myself (yes, I usually do that).

I find his appeals to religion to be a dead end where liberty is concerned- but that's just how I see it.

I find his enthusiastic support for the government's military to be horrifying and harmful to Rightful Liberty. But I understand where he is coming from (idealism, experiences, family) even if I think he is dangerously wrong to support the enemy's gunmen.

And, putting the Constitution on a pedestal... meh.

But... He has put a lot of work into uncovering things liberty lovers can use against the bad guys. And, often when it comes down to it, he mouths support for the part of the State he likes while pointing out the harm of the rest. Which comes out on top? Depends on which way you look at it.

On the whole I'd say he stands on the right side, and now that he is dying, I want to let him know I appreciate his efforts. Doing something real, now, means more than sending condolences to his widow or offering to pray for them. Or, that's how it looks from where I stand.

If you can, join me:


Thursday, January 07, 2016

When shooting first isn't aggression

I recently read this column: Shoot First: The Han Solo Principle, and found a lot to disagree with.

For example...

If a person is holding you at gunpoint, force has already been initiated and you are acting in self defense to shoot first. The shot was not the initiation of force- not aggression- holding you at gunpoint was. Stating the intention of killing you is the second initiation of force. Go ahead and shoot; you wouldn’t be initiating force.

By my reckoning Han didn’t break his contract with Jabba- government (The Empire) got in the way and prevented the completion of the deal. When government is around it does this. Jabba knew, as did Han. It is a risk of doing business. Jabba would have been justified in sending Greedo after the government employees who actually caused the problem, but as a cowardly gangster he chose what he thought was a safer target. It's what bullies do.

Then, as always, people who want to try to reserve the "right" to initiate force start reaching for what they see as holes in the principle.

Pollution is a violation of property rights, which may or may not be aggression. Some people consider violations of property rights aggression and some don’t- and it doesn’t matter either way. Aggression isn’t the only wrong. Don't take, destroy, or damage the property of others.

Those who fear liberty always try to use children to hide behind. This guy followed the script.

Children do not belong to parents- parents are responsible for children. There is a difference. By having a child you are agreeing to be responsible for a person until the rightful owner of that person- which can only be the self- is capable of taking over the responsibility.

And then, he did something really bizarre. He tried to use States, the imaginary god of the statists, to show why Zero Aggression "can't work" when applied to States. What?

When you try to apply principles to States like the US you are completely going off the map. States- actually those who maintain them- are aggressors by definition. They claim a monopoly on the use of force within their "borders"- and will murder to prop up the illusion. They “tax” under threat of death, they kidnap, murder, and violate human rights with every thing they do. Including when they bomb or invade individuals who were not personally responsible for an attack on the “US”. States do nothing without initiating force, since they can’t even exist without initiating force.

If you want to “reserve the right” to initiate force (a right which can’t exist), then why are you worrying about the details? Just go ahead and be an aggressor and accept the consequences.


Wednesday, January 06, 2016

Looking at cops realistically

I am not by any measure a cop lover.

I don't want them around, I resent being forced at gunpoint to pay for their "services", I think they cause crime (even when they aren't the ones committing it), and I certainly don't need them.

There can be no such thing as a good cop, because cops live off theft ("taxes") and they enforce counterfeit "laws" which are harmful to individual liberty and property rights. If they didn't do those things, they wouldn't be cops- once they do those things they can't be good... even if they are "nice".

So, no, I am not a fan of cops. Or any other gang members for that matter.

However, there have been times I defended individual cops who were being punished for things I don't believe anyone should be punished for. (Disclosure- I am not a fan of punishment anyway, since I see it as revenge and unrelated to justice.)

That's because, even if I tend to think cops should be held to a higher standard than people who aren't allowed to steal, molest, and murder- if it's not wrong for me or my neighbor to do something, it's not wrong for a cop to do it.

The flip side is, if it is OK for a cop to do it (wear his gun into the post office, for example), it is OK for you to do it.

No double standards.


Tuesday, January 05, 2016

Laws are unnecessary, ineffective

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

If I had to come up with a short description of what differentiates libertarians from the rest of society, I might say while most worry about “what if”, libertarians focus on “what is”.

Those who believe in government, laws, and the state worry about “what if”. What if there were no stop signs? What if there were no law forbidding murder? What if someone cheats you out of money? What if people don’t make the right decision?

But consider what is.

Do stop signs actually stop cars? No. It's a choice made by each individual driver. I choose to stop at stop signs, not because there is a law ordering me to do so, but because I don't want to be in a wreck. You can choose what to do when you drive up to a stop sign, and there is no physical force there to take your choice away. If you approach a stop sign nothing can prevent you from driving on through, although it might be a bad habit to develop.

Would you commit murder if it weren't illegal? How many murders do you believe are prevented by laws forbidding it? Do you believe a mugger thinks about the law before shooting an uncooperative victim? Do you believe those who find themselves committing a crime of passion will stop when remembering the law?

If so, what other fantasies do you believe are real?

Laws don't do anything useful. They don't stop bad people or prevent tragedies. They only give enforcers the tools to molest people and trample liberty. They give an excuse to punish, instead of pursuing justice. Punishment doesn't even resemble justice, but is a childish substitute.

All this is an acceptance of what is, rather than imagining what if.

There are only two kinds of laws: the unnecessary and the harmful. Laws forbidding intentional harm to others are unnecessary, all others are harmful.

I understand better than you can imagine the wish to make bad things not happen. Believing government or laws can accomplish this is magical thinking; the belief in a real connection between a symbol, such as a law, and whatever the law addresses. This is the belief that rituals and chants can alter reality in defiance of the laws of nature. You might say this belief isn't hurting anyone, but is "doing nothing", but law and government are worse than doing nothing. They are harming you and your loved ones by hacking away at your liberty.


Anti-liberty bigots and their anti-gun "laws"


That's it: my answer to the anti-liberty bigots who believe they can make up laws against guns.

Making up those "laws"- or enforcing them- is a crime, according to the Second Amendment. In case you don't understand what an amendment is, an amendment over-rides the original document. That means even if the Constitution had once said government was allowed to make up rules concerning guns, the Second Amendment made that act a crime the instant it was adopted.

It doesn't matter how "sensible" or necessary you claim such "laws" to be.

Every politician who writes an anti-gun law is a criminal. A REAL criminal, not a fake criminal like people who don't pay taxes, sell raw milk, or smoke pot.

Any president who makes up executive orders concerning guns- other than directing all government employees to stop enforcing the countefeit anti-gun "laws" that infest America- is a criminal.

Every cop who enforces ANY anti-gun "law" is a criminal.

Every prosecutor who pursues someone on gun-related charges is a criminal.

Every judge who presides over a trial or sentencing of someone kidnapped (an act euphemistically called an "arrest") for breaking one of these illegal anti-gun "laws" is a criminal.

Government has zero right to outlaw gun possession in the buildings it built with stolen money- called "taxes". Doing so is criminal.

If it isn't wrong for a cop to carry a gun somewhere, in some manner, it isn't wrong for you to do the same. Enforcing "laws" to the contrary is criminal. Period.

But, all of that's actually small potatoes compared to the real issue.

The right to own and to carry weapons, everywhere you go, in any way you see fit, without ever asking permission from anyone is a fundamental human right. It existed before the very first bully dreamed up the superstition of "authority" and started telling others how to live. It will still exist after the very last government crumbles and dies. No one can make that right go away. No one has the right to demand a permit or otherwise place limits on this right. Rights can either be respected or violated- there is no third choice. Anyone who violates any right is a bully and deserves the fate of all bullies. Don't be a bully.

Don't comply with bullies. Resist them, oppose them, and if they attack you, fight back with everything you've got.

No to the anti-liberty bigots and their anti-gun "laws". Just, no.


Cowardly, criminal, post offices

The local post office is going full potato.

They've always had that ubiquitous "no guns in the post office" sign on the bulletin board inside, but now have posted another one beside the entrance.

I guess they are scared of that tiny loosening of the draconian anti-gun "laws" in Texas, where those who beg and pay government for a permit to exercise an inalienable right to own and to carry, everywhere they go, in any manner they see fit, any type of weapon they choose, without ever asking permission of anyone, can maybe begin to openly carry a gun (depending on the whims of local badge bullies who might just murder you anyway and say "oops") in ways very slightly less infringed upon.

Hate to tell you, post office, but as a government facility it is a serious crime for you to pretend to have the "authority" to ban guns on your premises. That's what the Second Amendment says and what it means, and since government employees are the only ones the Bill of Rights applies to- by forbidding certain things you might want to do to the individual rights of people- you are a criminal by doing this anyway. Of course, you won't care because you'll continue to get away with it.

Until the day you don't.

And it won't be at my hands, so don't misconstrue this as a threat. But, it is history: those who rely of the protection of government always have a nasty surprise coming when the winds change. And you, as an anti-liberty bigot, are on the wrong side- the losing side- of history.


Monday, January 04, 2016

Who would do such a horrible thing?

(Previously posted to Patreon)

What is your gut reaction when you see a "No guns" sign?

Do you think "Thank goodness! I'll be safe here!"

Or, do you instead recognize the facts of reality?

For me, it is like walking into the restroom of a fast food place and seeing a sign warning employees and customers to not wash their hands after relieving themselves.

Or a sign at the doctor's office saying "Please smoke".

A "no guns" sign is a declaration that your health and safety don't matter at all to the management.

It is an admission that a political agenda based upon superstitions and delusions (but I repeat myself) takes precedence over your life.

What kind of person would do that? Certainly no one you should associate with or spend money with.


The video blogs

I'd like to know what you think of the videos. Right now I'm just kind of playing around with them- getting a feel for it all.

Should I continue vlogging, or is it something I should have stayed away from altogether?

I know they are short- that is kind of the point. So many make these long video screeds- which can be very good- but I wonder how many people stay with them to the end. Especially people who might not already be on the side of liberty.

Like most of my blog posts, I intend to have stuff short enough that the point is made before the unsuspecting statist realizes what is going on and turns it off.

I realize my subject- and myself- are not for everyone.

Also, do you think it is better to have the transcript with the video, or just the video?

It is my intention- if nothing changes- to do a video or two every week. At least for a while.

If everyone hates them, that would be something changing to alter my plan.


Sunday, January 03, 2016

The Oregon occupation and stand-off

The standoff situation at the National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Oregon, in support of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, is simple and tragic:

What you see is opposing groups of statists squaring off and making threats at each other.

And they are all operating under the same flag. The supposed patriots are waving the flag of those they claim to be upset with- because make no mistake: the US flag, "The Stars and Stripes", belongs to no one but the US federal government.

Maybe, just maybe, once upon a time it stood for something else, but if it did, that ended with the federal defeat of the secessionists in the 1860s. Now the "stars and Stripes" is strictly an anti-liberty symbol of Big Government. One unfortunately embraced by some people who are on the side of liberty. But, I doubt any of those people are participating in the situation in Oregon.

No, there it's just one flavor of statism against another flavor of statism, and they taste about the same to me.

But pro-liberty people will somehow be blamed along with the anti-establishment statists who are actually involved. I distance myself from them.


The fate of parasites

Pretending that cops and politicians are important to society- or worse, that they somehow define society-  is like pretending tapeworms define the person and that the person depends on them.

Parasites are parasites. Don't put them on a pedestal. Parasites are not in a symbiotic relationship with you- they harm you, but they can't exist without harming you. Letting them continue to feed off of you is the most destructive form of welfare.

Expel them and let them writhe on the ground, dry up, and die. It's more consideration than they have earned.


Saturday, January 02, 2016

Mimicking aggressors

Here it is. Something new. A video blog post. Expect more to come.


Friday, January 01, 2016

Something big is in the works

Tomorrow look for something new here. It may surprise and shock you. It might even horrify and disgust you. You will never be the same.

Stayed tuned.