Thursday, March 31, 2016

Government prevents health care

Last week I got turned away from the doctor's office because I couldn't pay the fees not covered by my insurance. I was supposed to be getting the followup for the lab tests I had done about a month ago.

Now, I'm not really complaining- I don't want doctors (or anyone else) to be enslaved to me; providing their services for nothing. They don't "owe" me that.

However, if not for the DEA, FDA, and other State bullies, I could run to the store and buy my blood pressure medicine (which I have been on since my kidney stone last year) off the shelf, without seeking permission. I could ask the pharmacist for advice about using it correctly.

And that's not all.

In a free society you and I would be able to walk into any corner drug store and buy any drugs we want or need. Just hand over the money and walk out- without showing ID or a permission slip. Heroin, aspirin, Cannabis, Sudafed, birth control pills, cocaine, cough medicine, or "homeopathic medicines"- and then be responsible if we harm ourselves or anyone else due to using or abusing them. The scam of regulating drugs is evil.

Health care is a right- as long as you obtain what you want without theft or coercion. It is not an imaginary entitlement that someone is forced to provide you with.

In a free society I could search and find medical care that I could afford. It would be more affordable for everyone without the government's medical professional rationing scheme. There are ways to certify medical professionals and medications without the State being the monopoly who approves them.

When socialists decry the cost of healthcare they look for blame everywhere except for where the blame truly lies. I know where the unnecessary expense lies, and who is ultimately responsible for me not being able to afford it.

Please take note of all the options for supporting this blog and its author. They are there to the right.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

3D printing freedom

The older (and wiser?) I get, the more I despise imprisonment.

I've detailed the reasons in the past.

If you believe there are good justifications for human cages and supporting them through theft, and that it's worth the problems inherent in that sort of thing, please ignore this.

I was recently made aware of a nearby prison's main entry key being lost. In my twisted mind, the first thing I thought of was that I hoped someone could scan the key and put the 3D printer plans to copy it out there on the internet.

Then I realized that would be a wonderful thing to do with every prison key that could be surreptitiously scanned! Just imagine if every prison key in existence were available for download.

Please take note of all the options for supporting this blog and its author. They are there to the right.


Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Not buying religion of government

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 26, 2016)

The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

How's that working for you? Judging by the current situation, about as well as any superstition does.

You might as well declare "Everyone needs good food-- to guarantee healthy crops, we sacrifice babies to the Volcano Spirit."

Same sort of nonsense, based on the same kind of lies.

Belief in government-- the State-- is a religion- the world's most popular religion. It competes with all other religions, even when the faithful believe otherwise.

You can perform rituals with good intentions, but believing those rituals cause the outcome you want, although unrelated by cause and effect, is an example of magical thinking. You are establishing a government-- the natural enemy of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"-- to protect Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Might government be a "necessary evil"? If it is necessary, it can't be evil. If it is evil, it can't be necessary. Since government can't exist without theft (euphemistically called "taxation" and property codes) and without throwing the first punch (which is what most "law enforcement" is), it can't be good.

Faith in government also shows an utter denial of human nature- although the faithful would gnash their teeth at the suggestion.

People claim that because humans do bad things and can't be trusted, governments must be established to control them. I'm not sure where the people who make up government will come from, if not from the population of people who can't be trusted to behave themselves. If you set up a club where people can steal and attack from behind a veil of legitimacy, usually without consequence, what sort of person do you believe this club will attract?

Or, do you believe human nature will magically be improved by collecting people who are attracted to power into one big group and giving them power?

In America, the Constitution was supposed to set boundaries which could never be crossed as a way to restrain the nature of government. It didn't work. The Constitution was violated almost before the ink was dry. Today there is no prohibition on government power-- as the Bill of Rights was intended to be-- which remains intact. So, what's your next big idea?


Being disarmed can lead to being soft and useless

Yet another observation from Machiavelli:

"But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you. ... But when a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate..." Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter XX, 1513)

Yes, complying with anti-gun "laws" does often make one contemptible, soft, and effeminate. And useless. And, therefore, easier to control. Is that how you want to be? Not me.

I'm not even sure the US government and its local accomplices attempt to disarm people because they believe the population to be cowardly. In fact, I think their fears may be just the opposite; that the people won't be cowardly, but will be noble and brave and drive out the cowards who want to rule.

Which brings us to the "lack of loyalty" part, which I would agree with. But only an idiot or an evil person is loyal to evil rulers. Loyalty, like respect, is worse than worthless if it is given to those who haven't earned it. Government earns contempt, not loyalty.

So, yes, I am offended when evil monsters try to disarm anyone. It's right to be offended by harmful actions, just as it is silly to be offended by words or opinions.

Please take note of all the options for supporting this blog and its author. They are there to the right.

Monday, March 28, 2016

Campaign stress

(Previously posted to Patreon...
Subscriptions are as cheap as you make them! Look at your options to the right; Paypal buttons and below. A Patreon subscription gets you access to everything published there so far. Even a one-time GoFundMe donation will get you access for a month. Go ahead- jump on it!)

Sure seems like people are causing themselves a lot of unnecessary stress by paying attention to the presidential campaigns.

I get it- some bully is going to be "elected" president, and will be put into a position where he can do things harmful to you. You may believe the best way to minimize the damage is to stay "informed".

When it comes to politicians, there is no such thing as "informed". You will be misinformed in various ways, though. How your specific misinforming takes shape depends on who you happen to get your "information" from. But it's all misinformation or disinformation. Even if you get it first hand!

The only thing you really need to know is that they are all nothing but bullies. Any "authority" they achieve by landing the "job" as the "nation's" primary tax junkie is imaginary. The "authority" only exists to the extent you pretend it exists.

Your life would probably be improved more by ignoring the pageant and doing things that actually matter. Such as learning skills, hoarding money (precious metals, durable trade goods, ammo, etc.), buying and training with guns, and making local friends you can trust. And, doing other things you enjoy! These things matter a lot more than which particular puppet sits at the desk in the Oval Office.

One thing I have noticed is that the predictions of doom if So-&-So is elected never actually come to pass. Yes, each president is a little worse than the one who came before him- since they all continue the bad stuff their predecessors did and build more bad stuff on top of that. But, the specific president is spectacularly unimportant to the whole process. He (or she) is a figurehead. The real State isn't going to even notice which particular bump in the road is holding the office.

And I suggest you do the same.

There are so many ways you can increase your own power over your destiny. You can't control everything, but the more you prepare, the better your chance of weathering whatever comes along.

I don't want you to be frustrated and worried. I think there are better ways to live your life. Wouldn't you agree?


"Touched" by a devil

As previously mentioned, I recently read The Prince. A few things really caught my eye.

"And when neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways." ~ Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter XIX, 1513)

Either this is no longer true, or bad times are ahead for the bad guys of the US, who have spent well over 100 years "touching"-- molesting-- the honor and property of everyone in America.

It's a shame that people can't be roused to action by seeing others "touched". Maybe that is part of my problem- it doesn't have to be personal for me to take it personally. If I don't want it done to me, I don't want it done to you, either. Nor to my enemy. And I will speak up.

Of course, that brings to mind another quote: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." – H.L. Mencken

Please take note of all the options for supporting this blog and its author. They are there to the right.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

The difference between statism and me

Guess what- there are things I don't like. Yet, I have no desire to impose my likes or dislikes on anyone else.

I don't like pit bulls. But I would never advocate banning them.

I don't like drug abuse. But I wouldn't advocate criminalizing it or caging people for doing it.

I don't like rap music. Or sports. Or "excessive" tattoos. Or loud cars. Or crew cuts. Or business suits. The list could go on and on. Everyone has a long list of "don't likes". Yours won't be the same as mine. You and I will justify our opinions to ourselves, and to others if asked, but that justification comes down to there being some things certain people don't like, but others do. It's purely subjective.

There is no right answer to "do you like...?" as long as you aren't talking about aggression or property violation. Even if you "like" to attack people or steal their property or trespass (in which case you may have a career in "law enforcement")- you have no right to do so, and your victims would be right to kill you in order to stop you.

But, everything else is just a matter of opinion. Even if your opinion is very strong and popular.

This difference was illustrated quite clearly by the case of the woman recently arrested in North Carolina for having sex with her dog. I don't "agree with" people engaging in sex with non-human animals. I wouldn't do it. I would probably avoid anyone I knew had done such a thing. But I don't support sending cops to arrest her. An "arrest" is a violent kidnapping. If you resist being kidnapped by bullies with badges you will be murdered by them. All "laws" are ultimately a threat to kill anyone who defies the opinions of ethical cripples and moral degenerates. Why can't you dislike things without thinking it's OK to rob people in the name of "taxation" and then use their stolen money to violate their liberty?

I understand the disgust certain acts trigger. I even agree in many cases. But to then turn your disgust into an excuse to violate others is really sick.

Just who do the people who applaud this woman's arrest believe she victimized? The dog? Rights aren't applicable across species lines. You have no right to not be eaten by a bear and a deer has no right to not be shot by a hunter. I don't trust people who are cruel to animals, but they haven't violated any other person.

Maybe some of them believe she has victimized herself. That is up to her to decide. Either people own themselves, or they are slaves owned by someone else. If she owns herself, then she is within her rights to use her body and life as she sees fit, as long as she isn't violating someone else. Up to and including destroying herself.

Or perhaps "society" or "community standards" have been harmed. If this is the case I'll slap you right in your aura for believing in such a silly concept.

It's not that I am arguing that sex with dogs should be legal; it's that it shouldn't be illegal. Even though I find it disgusting. I know where my boundaries lie. Apparently statists don't. And I suppose that's the real difference between statism and me.


Saturday, March 26, 2016

Ignorance and statism

Ignorance leads to statism. The more I learn- really LEARN- the further from statism I move. Decreasing ignorance makes statism wither. I suppose the opposite is probably also true, although I have yet to actually meet anyone who gets more ignorant with time (barring a stroke or other brain malfunction), but I know lots of people who remain static in their ignorance and in their embrace of statism.

This pattern I have noticed in myself has gone on for years. Is it likely that I will eventually learn enough new things to change the pattern? To begin seeing benefits in statism that aren't outweighed by the negatives? I suppose it's possible, but not likely.

I'm not saying I know everything. Far from it. I try to learn new things all the time- whether I like the implications of what I learn or not.

So far I see no hints of things, in front of me or just beyond the horizon, that would support the idea that statism is ethical or helps humanity.

The bad things I do learn may indicate that humans are prone to statism. It might be "natural" for most of them. It may take many generations for this to change. That doesn't make it in any way good or ethical.

Please take note of all the options for supporting this blog and its author. They are there to the right.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Christian liberty posters

Although I am somewhat hostile toward religion, I am not hostile towards individuals who follow religions- as long as they don't use their faith as justification for aggression and theft.

In the spirit of reaching out to my principled Christian friends I made a few illustrations to help them get the point across.

I hope they like them, and can use them. Feel free to copy and use them however you see fit.

(Yeah, this one is iffy. So many seem to believe The State- "America"- to be the source of wealth and prosperity, and worship it for this reason. I still think it works, but you may not.)

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Dangerous times for truth and honesty

They say it is dangerous to be right when government is wrong.

It is also dangerous to even question whether government might be wrong, when even other liberty lovers are anxious to throw you to the wolves.

It is dangerous to point out that people are using words incorrectly, ignorantly accusing a person of something by buying into the statist definition which is demonstrably incorrect. But it won't matter because "Emotion!".

It is so dangerous to even mention this that I can't go into further details without being accused of being guilty of the same thing- because I'm seeing it happen to others right now.

I know this is frustratingly cryptic, and I apologize. But as I say, I don't feel like facing the wrath of statists AND liberty-lovers who have bought the State's lies. I just feel really bad for those who spoke up and are suffering because of it.


Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Recent protests missed right target

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 19, 2016)

The past couple of years have seen various protests against out-of-control government employees and agencies. Earlier it was the "Black lives matter" protests of deadly police encounters; more recently, ranchers protesting abuse by the Bureau of Land Management.

These protests miss the mark-- sometimes tragically.

Rule number one: When you protest, make sure you target the enemy, not bystanders.

While I agree "Black lives matter", I couldn't support the protesters when they vandalized, looted, and burned the property of those who were not their enemy. The residents affected by the protests came to fear the protesters, who instead of laying siege to the police station and courthouse, attacked the property of people who were not the problem. They alienated potential allies, causing them to beg for more police in the area. Just fanning the flames. Targeting the innocent is aggression, and cheapens your life, whoever you are.

Rule number two: Be consistent. I agree that the Bureau of Land Management is an abusive, rights-violating gang of bullies. Its buildings-- occupied by the protesters-- were built on stolen land with stolen money. But you lose credibility when you protest under the flag of your enemy; venerating your enemy's symbols.

So, although the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge protesters had the right target, they fumbled on principles.

The only aggression in the attempt to reclaim the wildlife refuge from the agency was committed by the government enforcers, who ultimately committed the only homicide to result.

In both protests, death came at the hands of government employees, and the killers got away with it. How would it turn out for you or I had we done the same thing?

Ranchers have a long history of being abused by government, sharing this common ground with residents of poor neighborhoods who have also experienced a long history of abuse at the hands of government employees.

Both share a common enemy, and I'm sad neither of them notice they should be on the same side. If only they'd move past the divisions which have been manufactured to keep them from uniting against the real enemy. And keep their protests free of hypocrisy and aggression.

Don't copy the behavior of the bad guys. Be above it. Join with others who have been similarly violated where you can find common ground. Together, we outnumber them. Let them come to that horrifying realization, and maybe things will improve once they know they can't get away with it anymore.


Legitimizing the enemy

No, I am not a Trump supporter. Nor even a presidency supporter. I don't "need" a president. I don't want a president. And- funny thing- I am old enough to have noticed presidents don't actually affect me in any way. No matter who they are.

But, I'm still enjoying watching Trump's campaign.

One of the most fascinating things about Trump's candidacy is how it is bringing out the absolute worst in those who oppose him. With their behavior they are doing more to advance his campaign than his supporters could ever hope to do without their help.

Basically they are making his point for him- whatever it is his supporters believe his point to be.

This illustrates why you'll never see me out protesting "government"; screaming and waving a sign in the face of pro-government extremists. Don't give your enemy legitimacy. Don't give him something to point at and convince his supporters to fear- something he can promise to protect them from.


Monday, March 21, 2016

Everyone is "liberal"

Just as silly as "Right vs Left" is the idea of "conservative vs liberal".

Simply, the "conservative" wants things to stay as they are, and the "liberal" (or "progressive") wants change.

But, there are no political people who don't vary on that point, depending on the topic.

Some want anti-gun "laws" to increase, some want them to decrease. Some want "taxation" to go up, some want it to go down, and some want it to be recognized as theft and go away. Everyone is a "liberal"- no one wants everything to stay exactly the same.

There may be some who are truly "conservative" on an issue or two, and who want that one thing to stay the same, but even these people want "progress"- however they might define it- in other areas.

Now, some want things to go back to "how they were", or to how they imagine them to have once been. That's not conservative, either, since it still involved radical change.

Me, I'd like to take the best things from the past, keep the best things from the present, and add the best things the future can come up with to maximize human liberty and minimize aggression and theft. Yes, that's very liberal and progressive, so unlike the statists who call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" but are really just statists who only want to change things toward more draconian control of everything that they fear or hate.


Sunday, March 20, 2016

Welcome to the Zombie Apocalypse

In a lot of ways it feels as though I am living through a personal Zombie Apocalypse. But no one around me is experiencing things the same way I am. (That's always going to be true, regardless.) To panic would look odd to observers.

I am living in circumstances that test me. Circumstances others, perhaps, wouldn't think anything of.

When I can view it as a survival situation- honing my skills, etc.- I do OK.

Other times it is overwhelming and I am tempted to give up and let the zombies eat me. These are the times I have no corresponding skills to use. I need new skills.

Fortunately, it's not all one or the other, but a combination. And, if anyone wishes to help blow the heads off a few of the pursuing Zombies, I will always appreciate it.

And, it makes me realize others are being chased by zombies I can't see. Zombies that maybe I can help them fend off. If they'll ask.

A lot of people seem to see election season in this way- I wish I could help them see those zombies are an illusion. Or give them the tools to use to behead the zombies if they are real. We all fear the zombies we have no weapons against, and laugh about the ones we know can't touch us.

And we all see only our own zombies.


Saturday, March 19, 2016

"Anarchist!" Not an insult

(Previously posted to Patreon. Please subscribe!)

That moment when a statist calls you an anarchist, thinking it's an insult rather than an admission you're a better person than he.

I was trying to remind people to not hate supporters of presidential candidates, but to pity them. They are, after all, pitiable creatures; tying their fortune and reputation to demonstrably evil, lying people.

Somehow the conversation turned to hating cops, or not, based on the specious claim that cops are people too, with good or bad, just like everyone else.

I pointed out that it is the cops' actions that make them bad. If there can be "good cops", then there can also be "good rapists". The act is what defines the label; nothing else. And, while cops and rapists both, by definition, violate people to be what we identify them to be, rapists don't demand thanks and respect for doing so. This makes rapists ethically superior to cops.

This didn't sit well with one particular guy.

Quickly the rhetoric was escalated. In a flurry of posts I was asked whether I want the Constitution, or law enforcement of any kind. (No, I don't!) He also made the fatal statist error: If I don't want cops, then obviously I don't want accidents to be taken care of and removed from the roadways. I don't want roads or emergency medical response or fires to be fought. I don't want anything associated with "protect and serve". I don't want anyone to help anyone else.

After I wiped the tears of laughter from my eyes, and reminded him that cops only protect and serve themselves and the bullies who steal the money to pay their salaries, I asked why he believes only tax junkies can respnd to emergencies.

But it was too late. He had called me an anarchist and blocked me.

He believes "anarchist" to be an insult!

Because I don't believe I have the right to enslave, nor the obligation to allow myself to be enslaved, I am somehow bad? Because I respect the property rights of others, recognizing that no imaginary "collective rights" can override them, I should feel ashamed? Because I neither agree to rule or be ruled, I am the bad guy?

Statists are insane.


There are only two options here

I am not religious. I don't believe you'll find scientific facts in the Bible beyond the understanding of the people of the era in which they were originally written. I don't believe in anything supernatural.

Yet, I still don't believe Romans 13 means what statist Christians want it to mean.

If it does mean what they claim, then it would mean the Bible is a lie. It means it sides with evil and against good.

If it doesn't mean what they claim it means, and if the supernatural parts of the Bible are true, they'd better stop taking God's name in vain and ask forgiveness.

I fully support the interpretation of my friends, the liberty-loving Christians, in this case. Maybe because theirs is the correct one; maybe because the alternative would be too painful.


Thursday, March 17, 2016

Lost in translation

Often, when I read things written by others, I am forced to engage in ongoing translation. It's as if they are writing in a foreign language. Actually, that may be closer to the truth that I know.

When they write the word "leftism" I normally know I have to translate it as "statism". When they write "freedom", I can usually tell from the context if they really mean "liberty". And so it goes.

If I can do this with others who love liberty but who use different words than I do, I should be able to do the same when reading things written by anti-liberty bigot statists. But that's even harder.

How do you communicate when you have so little common ground that they not only call an act of The State something other than slavery, but actually believe this example of slavery is OK. Their ethics are inside out, upside down, and in an altogether different dimension.

It's amazing there's any communication between us at all- and that's why there usually isn't any.


Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Me, my flaws, and Liberty

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I'm ridiculous. I'm absurd. I've been told I'm smug. I'm definitely stubborn. I won't bend when I think I'm right- especially after I have thought it through from the other guy's perspective and concluded, in spite of various objections, I was right all along.

I've done bad things. I've done things I don't think were bad, but others would. I've done good things that turned out badly. Occasionally I may even do something good that goes well for me.

I've stuck to my principles. I have violated my principles. I've accepted consequences and I've complained about consequences. I've felt powerful and I've felt helpless.

I dress funny. I don't fit in. A former wife said I only refuse to dress like everyone else for attention. Maybe she was right.

I have succeeded and I have failed miserably.

I haven't been able to liberate my relatives as much as I wish. I hate seeing them hurting themselves just because they are afraid to have something better. Or, even worse, because "it's always been this way and it's not going to change". That's the saddest excuse of all, even worse than when they use their religion to justify support for The State. I have come to grips with the fact I can't be responsible for the choices others make- no matter how painful or embarrassing they are.

And in spite of all that, liberty works for me. Personally. In the day-to-day real world. Not perfectly, by any means, but better than the alternative that everyone else seems to settle for. Liberty, when put into practice, just works.

If it can work with all my obvious shortcomings, it can work for you.

You just have to live it.

Sure, I could be a better spokesperson for liberty. I could shave, cut my hair, and wear "professional" clothes. I could ditch the hats, the 19th Century clothing, and get up-to-date spectacles, or contacts. I could learn to speak better, maybe even without sounding vaguely Bullwinkle-ish. I could take courses on "How to win friends and influence people"; on persuasion. I could get a "real job" to show that liberty doesn't necessarily mean being broke.

Those changes might make me a better liberty spokesperson, but I wouldn't be comfortable- well, other than having more money. And what good is liberty if you can't enjoy it?

I could be more polite in the face of bullies and their rules. I could be nicer to those who advocate bullying me and taking my property- they "mean well", I am told. I should respect their opinions more.

On the other hand, if those are changes you believe I should make, perhaps you should consider being the me I can't be- better than me. Be the spokesperson for liberty you wish I could be.

You might be the missing element. The catalyst. You might be the one to make the difference I could never make with all my flaws. You'll never know until you do it.

So, do it.


Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Even government’s right sometimes

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 12, 2016)

I have discovered- to my horror- there are still people who believe the Earth is flat. To compound my dismay, I see some justify their belief by saying government promotes the "globe Earth" theory, so it must be a lie.

Government conspiracies aren't imaginary; many are carried out openly, often in front of news cameras. If there's opportunity, an advantage, and low chance of being exposed and embarrassed before the lie has served its purpose, government will lie. The Gulf of Tonkin "incident" and the Tuskegee experiment should be evidence enough.

But, government also promotes-- or accepts and uses-- "2+2=4". A stopped clock is right twice a day- although this was more true before digital clocks.

Earth was known to be a globe long before NASA came along to "promote" the idea; millennia before any current government existed. This reality was discovered independently by various people throughout history, using experiments they were able to think up and do for themselves. Experiments you can do, if you care to.

If you don't want to measure angles to the stars or do other physical experiments, you can engage in thought experiments to the same end.

For example, look at "flat Earth" maps. The farther you move from their center, the North Pole, the worse they get. According to those maps, in Australia you would have to walk much farther to cover the same distance east or west than when walking north or south. I pointed this out and was told the maps aren't a true representation and distort the shape of the Earth, "just like maps of a globe Earth".

Yes, because the Earth isn't flat. Being nice, I suggested they make a flat Earth map without the distortion. It should be extremely easy. The problem in making a flat map of the world comes from trying to represent a spherical surface on a flat one; something will be distorted, usually near the poles. A flat Earth wouldn't have this problem and would fit easily on a flat map; a simple one-to-one transfer of points, without land or ocean distortions. Yet they can't do it.

You can approach their claim from multiple angles and keep getting the same result: a roughly spherical Earth.

When data from many different observations keep pointing to the same conclusion, you can be confident you've found truth.

Skepticism and an open mind are good, but falling for any hare-brained notion which sounds appealing isn't enlightenment. Even if it means you and the bad guys sometimes agree.


My first knife

This is a photo of the very first knife I ever owned. Yes, I still have it.

It is a Robeson "63251". I got it while I was in 1st grade- I can't remember who gave it to me now- and I carried it with me all throughout my kinderprison days- right through high school graduation. At school, every day, regardless of whatever the rules might have been. Not that I even have any idea whether it was "allowed" or not. I didn't care, so I didn't bother to see if I were breaking the rules.

And I never stabbed or attacked anyone with it. Not even the few times I ended up defending myself from bullies.

Of course, I graduated to bigger, better knives- even before I stopped carrying that one. A couple of times, when I knew I was facing a threat, I even took bigger knives with me into the adolescent zoo, just in case.

No "rule" can ever forbid me the tools of self defense. Of course, I also know every decision has consequences.


I was reminded of this by a post over at Joel's blog.

Monday, March 14, 2016

A Bunkerville lesson learned

If the feds have actually started an organized roundup of the Bunkerville defenders, there is a lesson to be learned.

And that lesson is...

If you ever find yourself in a situation where you have to resist being molested by government employees, especially with weaponry, you might as well go all the way. Because they will come after you eventually anyway.

You read that right. If you are in a situation where you have to be armed to avoid being immediately kidnapped or murdered, the bullies of The State can't let that go. So, unfortunately, you may as well get as many of them as you can.

That's not my "rule", it is theirs. The anti-liberty bigots have made their beds.

It shouldn't be like that. If The State were civilized it wouldn't be like that. But States aren't. Instead, the most they will do is regroup to wait until they can get you in relative safety. Government employees are cowards and ethical cripples. Otherwise, they wouldn't be government employees.

Again, this is another application of the truth that when the enemies of life, liberty, and property raise the stakes and make the penalties high no matter how you act when you ignore their counterfeit "laws", you have nothing to lose by going all the way.


Sunday, March 13, 2016

It doesn't mean what I thought

It is disheartening that here in this region of Texas- and to a lesser extend, this part of New Mexico, too- you can't go anywhere without running into unwelcoming signs. They are beside almost every door of every business you might want to enter.

With all the real concerns out there, why the focus on guns? Mere tools. The focus is never on acts. You never see a sign prohibiting robbery, murder or rape- only pictures of guns. How idiotic and cowardly.

But, I guess I should be comforted that those idiotic, cowardly signs apparently don't mean what I had thought they meant.

I thought they meant "no guns". Well, it's good to know that ridiculous symbol only means "guns must be handled appropriately". Whew! Good to know!

Still, this sign says that in a much more adult way:

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Anti-gun bigots strike again

Someone I have met was just kidnapped and released (it was called an "arrest") because well over a month ago, a cowardly, sniveling off-duty cop saw him wearing a gun on his hip, openly and peaceably, in a convenience store. This disgusting cop had issues with this behavior from a mere mundane because he believes "the law" prohibits guns in places that sell alcohol. By my acquaintance's understanding, this "law" only applies where alcohol is consumed on premises. Whatever.

Of course, you and I know such a "law" is always counterfeit, and enforcing it is only carried out by evil induhviduals. Like the bully cop.

At the time of the non-incident, the bully allowed my acquaintance to leave, but apparently tattled to those holding his leash as soon as he could.

So the prosecutor- another sniveling anti-liberty bigot- decided to issue a demand for his kidnapping. Of course, being a statist with delusions of "authority" he called it a warrant for his arrest. Same thing.

Now, you know that a badge doesn't make wrong right, nor does it make right wrong.

If an act is wrong for you or me, it is wrong for a cop. And if an act is OK when done by a cop, it is OK for you or me to do the same. That's the only way it can be, because cops are not superior, with additional rights or privileges.

They are nothing more than lowly hired hands who are subservient to us, and have no rights we don't already possess- because no one can authorize anyone to do things he doesn't have the right to do. If I don't have the right to carry a gun into a convenience store- or into a bar, courthouse, or anywhere else- then neither can a cop; hired on my behalf. That's just reality.

History shows cops will murder you- with the full support of their followers- for acting on this reality, but that just proves how disgustingly evil they are.

There is no victim and there is no crime. My acquaintance did nothing wrong- all the guilt lies with those who dreamed up, wrote, passed, and enforce this counterfeit "law".

I hope my acquaintance insists on a jury trial, and I hope that at least one member of his jury knows he has a duty to nullify this counterfeit "law" by saying "not guilty" and refusing to even consider "lesser" charges or any penalties whatsoever.

That's the right thing to do.


Thursday, March 10, 2016

"Trade deficits"

Once again I saw someone whining about "trade deficits". This, again? People still believe in that sort of thing? Well, yes, people who believe in The State still believe in other meaningless things, too.

There can be no such thing as a "trade deficit". There can be trade, or there can be theft. The component that makes the difference, by its presence or absence, is coercion. When you trade, there is no deficit; no imbalance. Not ever.

One example that is much overused in regard to "trade deficits" is China. Chinese manufacturers make cheap stuff and sell it to customers in America. And we customers pay them for it. No one forces us to buy any one thing in particular. Even government has so far failed in this area (except in the "market" of "services" like insurance).

When we give a Chinese manufacturer dollars (in the roundabout way this sort of thing occurs), we have made an even trade. Dollars for products. There is no deficit. If you are losing something in a trade, don't trade. Unless a government or mugger gets involved and takes your property (products or dollars) and gives nothing (or too little) in return, the trade is always an even one.

But this brings up a philosophical question. Which is more valuable: printed paper with dollar signs or real goods that can be used to make a better life for the people who possess them? Apparently, under current circumstances, to most people, they are of equal (but fluid) value. When the dollar eventually collapses (as all fiat money does) would you rather have a big bank account or a house full of useful items that you purchased indirectly from sellers in other countries (who now have your worthless paper)?

If you claim the money traded for the products is worth more than the product you got in return, you are an idiot to agree to the trade. Personally, as an individual. If you wish to claim that US dollars are worthless (or worth less), you are saying the Chinese company got ripped off, not you. You have no "authority", nor enough wisdom, to judge another person's trade. What makes sense to them may seem one-sided to you. That is not for you to judge.

If you are mad that "PlastiCrap World" sells cheap Chinese products, don't buy them. Pay more and get a better item instead, either from the same store or from a competitor. Or get what you want from a yard sale or flea market. Or design and build your own. I do all the above, and so can you. Plus, sometimes I buy the "cheap junk" because it suits my needs at the the time, at the price I am willing to pay. Once again: voluntary trade = no deficit.

The whole myth of "trade deficits" is just an excuse to tell you who you can trade with, and under what conditions. It also always funnels some money into thieving governmental hands. This myth is an authoritarian power-grab and is bad for liberty and good for coercive government.

But what about "American jobs" going overseas? Outsourcing is a form of "division of labor". If you are good at doing something, people will seek you out to purchase that product or service. As long as you charge a price people are willing to pay, that is. Minimum wage laws mess with that formula. They skew the market and make it harder to do business affordably and competitively where they exist- but that's another issue for another day.

Also, when governments subsidize a company so it can sell cheaper to another country, that skews the market, but also is a net drain on the people of the country doing it ("taxes", etc.) so they are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. And, again, you can choose to refuse to trade with companies you believe take advantage of government handouts, wherever in the world they may be based. Governments screw up everything they touch- that's a reality you need to deal with.

Now, I am not sure what companies are thinking when they set up their customer service phone centers in places where the employees have such a strong accent that they can not be understood by the average person. Unless they really have no interest in "serving the customers", which seems likely in many cases.

Adapted from two old posts of mine, here, and here


Wednesday, March 09, 2016

Borrowing trouble from schools

Getting worked up over stupid things done by "public" schools seems pointless to me. Yet people do seem to "enjoy" it as a hobby.

The solution isn't to go tell the principal your grievances, or to yell at the stupid teacher, or even to get angry over arbitrary and harmful rules.

The solution is to divorce your life from those awful kinderprisons. Why put up with them? Education is too important to waste time on school.

Yes, I realize you will continue to be robbed to fund them- or die for daring to keep your property intact.


Tuesday, March 08, 2016

You’re libertarian or you’re not

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 5, 2016)

Libertarianism is filled with wolves in sheep's clothing. People with anti-liberty ideals, when they share some pro-liberty ideals with libertarians, believe we share all their ideals. We don't. In fact, their anti-liberty "values" are disgusting.

I know there are also those who claim to be "conservative" or "liberal" who can't meet the minimum measure to fit the bill. Regardless of where you stand, I'm sure you can relate to the problem of wolves in sheep's clothing among any group.

Someone can be "libertarian leaning" while still not being libertarian. They are not the ones to learn from if you truly want to understand liberty.

Over the years I have seen people claim anyone who points out one of these frauds is falling into the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. If you aren't familiar with this fallacy, it's like claiming "No libertarian would do that!" If shown someone who claims to be a libertarian doing exactly that, they cry "No TRUE libertarian would."

However, the fallacy doesn't apply where there is a clear definition of what membership in a group entails, and it is being violated. For example: "no honest man would lie" isn't a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, because liars are not honest.

Sometimes he really isn't a Scotsman.

A libertarian is one who advocates maximum liberty and minimum government. My observation is that "minimum" anything is zero; you may believe in some other minimum.

"Maximum liberty and minimum government" is reached by rejecting aggression. Libertarians accept the fact that no one has a right to use force against those who are not being violent nor violating private property, and no one has a right to violate the property of others. A job can't grant you a pass, either.

Anyone who follows this is a libertarian whether he knows it or not, and those who don't accept it aren't libertarian no matter what they may say. By definition. A horse is a horse, and nothing else is.

The worst anti-libertarian impostors are always politicians. Ofttimes they don't claim to be libertarian, but are mislabeled as such by the media which doesn't understand the politician nor libertarianism. This gets old.

It is also divisive. Libertarians who believe in trying to vote their way to more liberty are constantly fooled into supporting politicians who don't reject aggression and theft, just because they believe another politician would be worse.

If you vote and value liberty, look at what the candidate does, not what he is called.


Hopeful delusions

Confession: I am horrible at romantic relationships. Every single one I have ever been in has ended in heartache for me (and quite probably for her, as well). Yet, I never seem to learn. I always believe that maybe next time will be better.

Sounds like every v*ter's experience, doesn't it.

They keep getting betrayed, having their hopes and dreams crushed by the system and the politicians they believed in... and they keep believing that "next time" will be different; perhaps it will change everything.

Which of us is more delusional?


Monday, March 07, 2016

One middleman who should always be cut out

If I buy corn from a farmer, rather than from a grocery store, I might save money. I might get fresher corn. I might even enjoy the experience a little more. What it doesn't mean when I choose to cut out the middleman-- the grocery store-- is that I "hate food".

Yet, this is what statists claim if I prefer alternatives to government monopoly "services".

Of course, most of what government does should not be done at all, but with those few things it does that should be done, government acts as a middleman. It connects providers with those wanting what they provide-- those who build roads with those who want a road built, for example.

The problem is that government then takes a huge cut of the money to pay for its inefficient and harmful bureaucracy- and probably even uses that cut to fund the things it shouldn't be doing which shouldn't be done at all.

Sometimes government has invented new ways of being a middleman by inserting itself into transactions as nothing more than a parasite- adding nothing of value to the trade while adding cost, inefficiency, and red tape- such as by insisting on being involved in gun purchases so it can approve or deny the sale, and take notes of all involved. Truly the idea of sick and perverted minds.

When you cut out the middleman grocer, you might feel a little bad. When you cut out the middleman government employee, you are enhancing your liberty. You are doing a service to yourself and others if you can starve that particular middleman by preventing him from being involved and skimming money from the economy.

Or, as one of my friends recently put it: "if we as individuals try always to 'cut out the middleman' that is government, we will be freer." I couldn't agree more!


Sunday, March 06, 2016

The worthless, lazy uncle- Uncle Sam

How do you like supporting that worthless, lazy uncle- Uncle Sam?

He sits on your couch in his underwear and wife-beater shirt, eating your food and telling you what to buy.

He's a pervert and a snoop. His laptop is always on- he's busy hacking into everyone's personal stuff and salivating at their private pictures and videos. He watches you. He also has his own cameras set up in the neighbors' houses- in their bedrooms and bathrooms, even.

He is a child molester- but says it's OK when he does it because he does it for their own good.

He has never had a job, but has always lived by stealing. He says that's OK because he buys you gifts with your money.

He also runs a protection racket. He claims he keeps you safe from neighborhood bullies, but the main reason those bullies are a threat is because he goes around picking fights and trespassing. He's a bigger bully than anyone he claims to protect you from. In fact, he's the only real threat to your life, liberty, and happiness, no matter what he says.

Most of your other relatives say you should be grateful to have him around, because you couldn't survive without him.

The truth is the exact opposite. You would be fine without him, but he'd wither and die without you. And you'd be better off than you've ever been before. At the very least you should kick him out of your house and make him find someone else to sponge off of and push around for a while.


Saturday, March 05, 2016

A "genuinely nice" cop

Copsuckers sure do have a wacky definition of "nice".

"Genuinely nice guy," he said. "You didn't have to ask him for anything, because he was already giving it to you...Justice should be swift, because from what I can see, there's no reason that this should have happened."

This brilliance was uttered by the cousin of the off-duty NYPD cop (FYI: cops don't ever consider themselves "off-duty" if it means acting civilized) who rear-ended another driver, then jumped out of his car, pointed a gun at her, and repeatedly yelled "You don't know who I am...I can kill you right now".

Before he could carry out his credible threat he was struck and killed by another driver- an accidental savior.

So, yes, Justice should be swift, and in this case it really was.

Unfortunately the guy chosen by Justice as its delivery driver is being charged with a "crime".

The State hates Justice and does everything it can to prevent it from happening. When it happens anyway, the bullies look for someone to punish.

OK, OK... so that may not have been justice. Not exactly. The cop's victim wasn't returned to her pre-violation condition, but her life very well may have been saved from his aggression and credible threat to murder her.

Maybe it was what they call "Karma".

Good riddance to bad trash- again. If only it could happen this way every time a cop tries to commit enforcement or initiate force in some other way.


Thursday, March 03, 2016

Change is scary

"And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them." ~ Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter 6, 1513- Yes, I am still reading this and still finding truths.)

Sometimes the "new order" isn't all that new, it is just unfamiliar.

Obviously the State's parasites don't want to lose their position.

Cops would lose "authority" and would no longer be able to aggress without much risk of consequences. They don't want to be demoted to mere "mundane". It would destroy their self-image.

Puppeticians would have to produce something of value or starve. No more living on "taxation" and having their worthless opinions imposed on people at the barrel of the cops' guns.

Even the millions of people doing work of variable worth for The State would have something change for them. They might even do the same job, but for voluntary customers who can choose to go elsewhere instead of a captive pool of slaves. That change is scary. But, there is the reality that much of what is done for "government" shouldn't be done at all. These people would have to find new purpose and work.

And, of course, Liberty is largely illegal today. Some people are bothered by the thought of breaking "laws", no matter how evil, worthless, or absurd those "laws" may be.

Psychology also indicates it is harder to lose something than to pass up a reward. People already have "government" and all that comes with it. Statism gives familiarity and predictability to those who drag their feet when presented with the opportunity for liberty. It doesn't matter that it isn't very good- they can imagine worse more easily than they can imagine better. So I try to show them better.


Wednesday, March 02, 2016

Collectivist delusions

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I was having an online discussion with someone who was defending collectivism and objected to those making it out to be a bad thing.

Just to be clear, I think there's a huge difference between cooperation and collectivism.

The difference is consent. The same difference that differentiates between "making love" and rape. You can join together with whoever willingly joins with you, but the moment you leave out consent you become a collectivist- an aggressor- rather than a cooperator; subject to self-defensive violence. It isn't the joining with others that makes a collectivist, it is the coercion they add.

He kept talking about "Big Things" he thought people needed to join together to create, and kept getting upset that others didn't want to be forced to do things he thought were important.

Then he made the statist's fundamental mistake and exposed why he isn't thinking clearly. He characterized individualists as "the group of people who don't consent to being a part of society...".

It's such a common mistake. Collectivism (particularly "government"- The State) is the opposite of society. It is the collectivists who refuse to be a part of society- refuse to be civilized. Instead they use aggressive force to short circuit society and have their way with others. That is barbarism- although it has been dressed up in fancy suits and given offices and convinced people it isn't what it is.

It doesn't matter to me if you establish your very own little communist enclave. Have at it. What does matter to me is whether you force others to participate. If you rob ("tax") me to support your project, you have crossed the line into collectivism. If you don't let people opt out or leave your group, you are violating them.

If you force them to leave "communal property" behind when they leave the commune, and they had already agreed to that condition from the beginning, too bad for them. However, if you come to me and claim that because I live in the area where you established your enclave- even though I never agreed to abide by your rules- I must either join or leave my property behind, we will have a problem.

If all my neighbors are communists/socialists/DemoCRAPublicans, but will coexist with me, I am fine with that. If they claim "authority" over me, and seek to violate my life, liberty, and property, I will resist their violations.

Rejecting collectivism isn't anti-social or isolationist. But even if an individual is anti-social or isolationist, it's not your concern. And it isn't suicidal. He tried to compare individualism to a liver or brain being separated from the human body. It's not the same. I can live without other humans- people have done so for years. It's not optimal. But a liver can't live without the rest of the body or an artificial substitute. Neither can a brain.

He also tried (confusingly, I believe) to tie one position or the other to "free will", and went on a tangent about whether it exists or not. Not that I see any way that has any bearing on the matter.

If free will exists, you have no right to violate it in a person who isn't violating others.
If free will doesn't exist, I have no choice but to be an individualist and trying to force me into a coercive collective won't end well.

Collectivistic statists are an interesting breed. Simplistic in their beliefs. Stubborn in refusing to see reality. But educational to occasionally talk to. Their sky really is a different color.


Tuesday, March 01, 2016

No One great choice for president

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 29, 2016)

Donald Trump: Making elections funny again.

I'm not usually interested in watching elections or the hysterics leading up to them. I see sincere but silly people trying to convince me that the bowl of sewage they dipped from the cesspool is more delicious, or at least less toxic, than the bowl of sewage some other people dipped from the same cesspool. I'm not interested in sampling either bowl.

I have never needed a president. I can't point to a single instance where a president improved my life in any way. The same goes for any political office.

I am told I need to help choose the person to fill these offices, since someone will be elected whether or not I participate. Sorry, but I'd rather keep my hands clean.

So, no, I don't want Trump to be president any more than I want any of the other covetous control freaks to be president.

I am, however, enjoying watching his campaign out of the corner of my eye.

It started back in the middle of August when Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams predicted Trump would win the election. My interest grew in October when Adams predicted a Trump landslide.

He bases this on Trump's skill at persuasion- what you could think of as hypnosis without the trance and clucking. Adams is also trained in hypnosis and says he has never seen anyone use persuasion as skillfully as Trump. The simplistic language; the appeal to identity; the rejection of reason; the way he offers a blank canvas with his words and lets the listener paint the picture he wants to see, believing this is what Trump said.

Several times Adams has predicted how Trump could neuter a particular opponent-- using what he refers to as "linguistic kill shots"-- only to have his prediction come to pass within a week or so. It is fascinating.

So, even though I have no need for a president and pity those who believe they do, I hope Trump wins if somebody has to, simply because I'd like to believe it possible for someone to look beneath the surface and see how voters are tricked into voting for someone.

Of course, my only choice for president is No One. No One would be a great president. No One is honest enough to trust with that power. No One can run your life better than you. No One deserves your vote. Vote for No One.


A 600 Year-old truth

"... for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse."~ Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter 3, 1513)

And so it still is, with every election and revolution.

Vote for this parasite, because he's better than that bully and you'll be more free if he wins.

Yeah, right.

Every president is worse than the ones before- each builds upon the abuses and violations of their predecessors and make up their own. If they claim to be reducing government, you can bet they are lying and building bigger government behind you back while you are distracted. When any president leaves office your liberty will be damaged a bit more than it was when he took office.

Because liberty NEVER comes from politics. You have to make it yourself. And TAKE it yourself. You can't exercise your liberty while obeying "laws"- liberty is the province of the outlaw.

Don't initiate force. Don't violate private property. Defend yourself and your property from those who violate you. Realize that defending yourself from violators will have consequences- and the consequences for defending yourself from certain serial violators will be steeper than for defending yourself from others- so be smart and choose your battles. Liberty-lovers have enough martyrs already.

Stop worrying about trading one bully for another, unless you know for certain you can trade for a weak, frightened bully you can easily get rid of without replacing him or her with anything.

And go out and live.