Harping on cops

I really hate focusing on cops so much recently. But... cops are THE biggest threat to Rightful Liberty and a voluntary society. Nothing else even comes close. Not a president, not federal judges, not congress. Nothing else.

Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face.
Cops are how politicians impose their arbitrary opinions on you and me.
Cops are the occupying army of domestic enemies we should have been fighting off before they got too big to beat. Or, at least, too big to beat without becoming a martyr.
Cops are nothing but a criminal gang- criminal in the real sense, not the artificial "legal" sense.

Exposing the reality of what cops are and what they do is important. The veil of legitimacy that too many people allow cops to hide behind must be undercut. Good people need to be shown why supporting cops is wrong. People who traditionally have thrown unwavering support behind cops need to be shown why it is long past time to wise up and stop doing so.

"Cop" isn't a person- it is a set of behaviors, just like "rapist". Don't commit the acts and you aren't the bad guy. If you stop committing rapes, you aren't a rapist. If you stop committing acts of "law enforcement", you are no longer a cop. But, no one can refuse to commit the acts and expect to remain a cop for long. And, stopping doesn't erase the debt your past acts have created- although I'm willing to forgive a lot, if the violator is truly sorry and repudiates his past actions, and doesn't return to his evil ways.

Being honest about cops has cost me. Personally and financially. But I couldn't live with myself if I turned a blind eye to the evil that is "policing".

So, yes, I am likely to keep harping on it.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online. I really, desperately could use some more help; please don't depend on the same people always stepping up.

Market for aggression

(I know the video is dark and back-lit, but I was going for something different, and looking at me isn't really the goal here, anyway.)

There will always be a market for theft and aggression, because people want the benefits it can gain them without taking the risk of doing the evil themselves. So, people without principles will offer to commit aggression and theft for a price to meet that "need".

Cops are one example, but not the only one.

Mafia hit men, government troops, and anyone else who commits violence- in exchange for money or favors- against someone who isn't already using violence (no matter how much you might dislike the peaceable, property respecting things they are doing) is marketing aggression.

And that can't be preemptively prohibited without crippling the rest of the market. You can't legitimately "prohibit" anything, anyway.

However, what you can do (although it isn't always wise) is defend yourself from those aggressors. You always have that right, no matter what anyone tells you.

The current cost of aggression is artificially low. Especially if you can pretend to be a "legitimate employee of government" [sic]. If the cost were raised to where it reflected the reality, fewer people would be able to afford the services of aggression peddlers, fewer aggression peddlers would remain in business, and society would be better off.

Self defense against aggressors (and thieves) is the way to raise the cost back to where it should be. At least, if self defense occurs regularly enough, some will get out of the aggression market, or choose to find an honest job, instead.

Considering that Utopia isn't an option, that's probably the best outcome possible.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online. I really, desperately could use some more help; please don't depend on the same people always stepping up.

Fred Reed goes all copsucker on us

Fred's off his rocker this time.

"Do you know any cops? Have you ever known any? I mean known them well enough to have a beer with after work, or to invite to a get-together at your house. Have you ever really talked to a cop?"
Yep. It was a big part of my education and wake-up call where cops are concerned.


"Has it ever occurred to you that there might be another side of the story?"
Yep. Rapists have a side to their story too. I don't have to become a rapist to know rape is wrong.


"Now, why don’t you know any cops? For at least two reasons. As a Pathologically Virtuous White (PVW), you are almost certainly a college graduate."
As I say, I have known cops (and ex-cops who loathe cops more than I do). And, no, I am not a college graduate.


"Further, cops are masculine,..."
LOL. O... kay...


"They are conservative and like guns."
They are statists who love Big Government, and only like guns in their hands. Cops are NOT the individual gun owner's friend. Who do you think enforces the anti-gun "laws"? It's not Obama or Chuckie Schumer.


"So you know nothing about them, their jobs, or the conditions in which they work. Especially the latter."
Again, do I have to walk a mile in a rapist's shoes to condemn rape?


"On the street, cops have to be hard-nosed or they lose their authority."
"Authority" is a superstition. The most dangerous one.


"Citizens are a pain in the ass when interacting with cops. They will lie, argue, bluster, threaten, and weasel."
Cops lie. It is an accepted part of their "job"- even under oath in government courtrooms. "Citizens" should be truthful to pathological liars?


"Now, let us go off the deep end and imagine that you,were required to don a cop’s uniform and spend three months walking a foot beat with a real cop in, say, Newark or Chicago or Detroit, downtown. How would this affect your mind?"
Yes, it would damage my mind to commit acts of enforcement. Might I begin to believe I have to right to impose arbitrary demands on people? Sure. That's why I wouldn't lower myself to become a cop. Or a rapist. Just because you can see things from the bad guy's perspective doesn't mean you are innocent when committing the acts that define a bad guy.


"People would not look friendly, especially the young men."
How should people look when confronted with a predator? A predator with a license to kill, who will demand compliance and molest you for doing things you have every right to do, and will then get a paid vacation and be found "innocent of any wrongdoing" no matter how much evidence is against him?


"You will realize that the police are not heavily armed thugs intimidating a helpless and cowering black public."
Right, they are heavily armed thugs intimidating a helpless and cowering... everyone who isn't them.


"Cops are vulnerable. Anybody passing you on the street could stick an ice pick into you, or blow your head off from behind."
So quit. Find an honest job that doesn't make you the enemy of the public.


"Hanging out at the Fraternal Order of Police, you would find that most cops are likable. This discovery would probably disturb you."
Not at all. Most cops are nice, but none are good. If they weren't nice- especially to their own gang, they wouldn't survive. It's common sense.


"You will see things that will change you."
Undoubtedly. But to molest people because you have psychological scars isn't excusable.


"But you would know what you were talking about–and you would find it a novel experience."
Because until you become a rapist, you have no right to criticize rape.


Sorry Fred, but this time you went full potato. I hope it passes.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online. I really, desperately could use some more help; please don't depend on the same people always stepping up.

Time's Up, plus 10 years

It was 10 years ago this summer that I created the Time's Up flag. I don't remember the exact date- although if I looked back through some photos and such I could figure it out within a day or two. It's not that important.

But, I know exactly where I was when the idea of making the Gadsden flag's snake stop rattling and strike first hit me.

I was sitting in a folding chair, in front of my parents' motorhome, in an RV park on the western outskirts of Albuquerque. I was looking at the Gadsden flag flapping on the front of the motorhome- I had hung it there to balance out the federal flag my dad likes to display.

I was thinking "Don't tread on me? That snake has been tread on nonstop for over 200 years, and he's still just sitting there rattling about it. It's about time he took action."

So, I pulled a scrap of paper out of my pocket and sketched it out. Then tried to decide the best wording to put under the striking snake. Besides "Time's Up", I thought of "Liberty" and a few other things. But my friends on The Claire Files forum helped me settle on "Time's Up".

The first version

The updated version

I have had the flags made and sold them. I have had patches made for sale, too. I have let people use the design on shirts, caps, and flags to sell. I have seen modifications of my original design that I liked, and have seen some modifications I didn't like. I have seen the flag used (with my permission) in comic strips. I have seen it used as people's profile picture on social media- by people who wouldn't have any clue about who I am, and wouldn't care if they did know. I have seen the design embraced by people who wouldn't like the principles behind it, such as "Tea Party conservatives". I have also seen it used by people who "get it".

I may not have made many real contributions in my life, but I think the Time's Up flag may be the one contribution which will outlive me.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online. I really, desperately could use some more help; please don't depend on the same people always stepping up.

You know what would be really helpful right about now?

I've been trying to avoid writing a post specifically to ask for money, however... donations are down and subscriptions are, too. But the cats still need to eat, and my daughter still needs and/or wants some things (and so do I), we still need gasoline to get to where we need to go, and there are still way too many bills to pay.

So, if you can, and only if you want to, please make a one time donation or become a subscriber. There are a few options over there to the right.

If you can't or don't want to, no problem. I understand both.

Thank you to all my donors and subscribers for all you have done!

.

Don't live down to the expectations

I care that you live by the Zero Aggression Principle and don't violate property.

I don't care about your "race", gender/sex, culture, job, wealth, "nationality", or anything else... as long as you live by the Zero Aggression Principle and don't violate property.

It's so simple.

However, if you use any of those trivial (or imaginary) categories mentioned above as justification for initiating force and violating property, I'm not going to excuse you based on your "race", gender/sex, culture, job, wealth, "nationality", or anything else, either. I know you can be a good person, and I expect you to live up to it.

When you use those excuses as justification for initiating force or violating property you are also spitting on others who don't commit those acts, but who will probably be unfairly grouped with you by ignorant observers.

None of those things require you to be an aggressor or a property violator- with the possible exception of your "job", and you are free to quit any "job" that requires you to be a bad person to do it. And you should.

You don't have to be a bad guy, no matter what you believe others expect of you. So, don't.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online. I really, desperately could use some more help; please don't depend on the same people always stepping up.

No one has right to violate others

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 24, 2016)

In the wake of the Orlando nightclub massacre, popular opinion seemed to blame either guns or the murderer's religion. It's good neither is subject to popular opinion, because opinion is fickle.

You have a right to choose and exercise your own religion, and you have a right to own and to carry any weapon you see fit, whether the majority agrees or not.

In fact, you have a natural human right to not be prevented from doing whatever you want as long as you aren't violating any other person's equal and identical rights while doing so. This is an infinite number of rights; more than could possibly be listed in one lifetime.

Your rights aren't dependent upon being written down on parchment. They exist even if government declares they don't. They exist even if cops arrest you and have you thrown in a prison cell for the rest of your life for exercising them. You aren't wrong for exercising your rights; government employees are wrong for violating them.

This is the nature of rights. They are not privileges. They are not subject to opinions or laws. They can't be limited, licensed, rationed, or eliminated for "the common good". They can only be respected or violated. The Bill of Rights, particularly the Ninth Amendment, was a failed attempt to put all your rights off-limits to government by making it a crime to violate them.

Government is the natural enemy of human rights; a predator, never a protector.

Use your freedom of religion as you wish, short of forcing others to live by your religion, through laws or threats. Laws based upon your religious ideals, which violate some other person's right to choose their own religion and not be subject to the edicts of yours, are wrong. It doesn't matter whether you use Christianity or Islam or Pastafarianism as the basis, if you impose your religion on others by law, you have become the bully.

Own and carry a gun of whatever type you choose, everywhere you go, openly or concealed, without asking government for permission, as is your natural right. Don't shoot at people who aren't harming or threatening anyone else, including those doing things your religion says are wrong.

No matter your excuse, you have no right to violate others, and anyone you violate has a right to defend themselves however they see fit. It's called liberty. It works, and is the mature way to live, but it isn't for cowards.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Blaming everything but the real problem

When I read "the news" I shake my head in disbelief and sadness at the utter stupidity documented therein. People blame everything under the sun, except that which causes the problems they screech about.

It's because they are dedicated to staying with what they believe they understand even though it is THE source of all they decry.

Until people see, admit, and accept the foundational problem, I don't expect anything they do to "solve" it to work.

There are a few things that can go a long ways toward fixing things: The Zero Aggression Principle (including the Covenant of Unanimous Consent), and shedding the superstitious belief in "authority", which should help you recover from the worship of bullies and gangsters that results from it, and their absurd opinions they'll gladly kill you over.

So, yeah, until people see, accept, and admit how they and their beliefs are causing the problems they whine about, not much will change. But they sure do look stupid yapping on and on about it all.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online. I really, desperately, could use some more help; don't depend on the same people always stepping up, please.

Hating, without vengeance

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I admit, I have a hard time not hating certain people.

One of those is the guy my older daughter Cheyenne was with for about five years. In fact, she had only gotten away from him about a year before she died, and it was mostly due to him that I didn't see her the last 6 years of her life.

My relationship with him started badly. I texted with Cheyenne constantly, but soon after she got with him, I sent a text to her and immediately got an angry phone call, demanding to know "Who is this?"

I'll let you in on a secret- I utterly despise jealousy, considering it an early step on the path of abuse. I know, because I have lived through it on the abused side.

Well, I laid into him. He made excuses and tried to justify himself, and apparently considered this an apology, but he never changed. It was implied that I didn't like him due to "racism". when that wasn't even a consideration. If you know me, you would know how laughable that is.

During all this my contact with Cheyenne got very sporadic- almost to the point of being nonexistent. The 700 miles between us, and my lack of a reliable vehicle made that even worse.

He refused to let her have her own cell phone, even though she made her own money. He kept her off social media. I have the feeling she didn't get the things I sent through the mail- as she never acknowledged them. The few times I got to talk to her, she defended him. As did her mom. My ex wife said "He's OK... once you get to know him". My son cut off all contact with his mother and sister because of the guy.

After Cheyenne got away from him, I actually started being able to talk to her again. She started posting pictures of herself and her kids on Facebook. She found a wonderful man who made her very happy and treated her well- taking her out hunting and fishing and treating her like a dad wants to see his little girl treated. And treating her boys as his own. They were planning a visit to come see me this summer.

I had pretty much scrubbed the abusive jealous guy from my mind (even though he is the father of one of her boys).

And then she died in the car accident. That changed more than you might think.

Now my ex wife says my son was "100% right" about the jealous, controlling guy, and she's sorry she let him come between her and her son. But my son isn't yet ready to forgive- even though I have warned him he will regret it if he doesn't. His mother is a decent person, mostly. Even if she is a statist who says I'm "crazy".

I feel the jealous, controlling guy cheated my younger daughter and me out of sharing the last years of Cheyenne's life. I don't want to hate anyone, but I may hate him. When I think of him. Which I try not to do.

Even so, I wouldn't initiate force against him. I don't want him imprisoned or violated by police. I have no desire to see anyone "govern" him, although if he violates someone, I'm fine with them defending themselves from him. My personal feelings have no bearing on his rights, or the fact I would defend them. So, if I hate him, which I may, it probably only hurts me. It is something I'm going to need to work through.

.

Starving while sitting at a buffet

If you saw people starving to death while surrounded by good food, would you sit by silently and watch them suffer?

What if they kept complaining about the food, saying it isn't what they want?

Personally, I would tell them the food is what they need to be eating. I would eat some to show them it isn't poisoned. And I would offer to serve them some. Then it's up to them. I wouldn't force feed them.

Well, people are dying of statism all around you right now. The solution is all around them- in order to avoid it, they have to actively reject it. They don't want liberty- it scares them in one way or another. It isn't what they want.

But I still tell them liberty is what they need for their condition. I live in liberty as much as is possible under the circumstances (even when "illegal" as much as I can without being murdered by cops). And, I offer to help serve them some liberty, just to get started. That's what my blog and newspaper column are all about.

But I wouldn't "force them to be free", even if such a ridiculous thing were possible.

What do you do?

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Statists and "anti-police rhetoric"

Apparently, cops and copsuckers believe there is too much "anti-police rhetoric" these days, resulting in people having the gall to defend themselves from violation by cops. And it upsets the statists greatly. Poor babies.

They are getting their diapers all gooey over people who believe they are exempt from federal laws, income taxes, driver's licenses, gun "laws", and who knows what else.

People who believe the government is no longer legitimate.

People who either know the score, or are deluded into believing they can be a "sovereign citizen". (Ha ha!)

In other words, people who believe they are "above the law".

What a bizarre thing to fear. How minor in the grand scheme of things.

If those trivial things scare them, the bitter truth would literally terrify them out of their minds.

Let me clue you in:

You are exempt from all the above violations of life, liberty, and property.
No State (what you probably mean when you think of "government") can ever be legitimate.
And you are above all made-up, written down laws. Everyone is above the law, because the law is a poor substitute for individual rights and the emergent property, called society, which results. "The law" supposedly serves you, and as your servant, you are logically above it.

Doesn't mean bullies working for the government won't murder you for recognizing this, but the truth is the truth. None of this means you have any right to initiate force or to violate property, but self defense doesn't cross either line.

Cops are just another nasty gang. The big difference between cops and other thugs is that the cops have nicer stuff. Shiny signs telling what you are "required" to do, clean and pressed gang colors, flashy gang cars, fancier guns and weapons (often, stuff you and I are prohibited from owning)- all the stuff associated with the Blue Line Gang. And all this fancy stuff is bought with the proceeds of their crimes- crimes they are committing against you and your family, friends, and neighbors.

"Anti-police rhetoric"; formerly known as "the expectation that cops obey the laws they impose on the rest of us, don't shoot first and ask questions later, don't act like murderous cowards, don't show up at the wrong house and automatically shoot the dog or grenade the baby, and don't aggravate the situation by aggressively accosting people who aren't doing anything wrong".

But, yeah, "anti-police rhetoric" is so much simpler for simpletons to say.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

.

The worst welfare recipients

There's a difference between being a drugged out addict without a job collecting welfare for a household full of kids, and someone who works at the DMV or city hall: the addict isn't "contributing" but at least he isn't actively harming anyone like the government employee is.

If your paycheck comes from the government-- even if you "work for it"-- you are on welfare.

If you use your welfare "job" to harm life, liberty, and property you are worse than any welfare recipient who at least doesn't go out of his way to violate everyone further.

I have more respect for the drug-addicted welfare collector than I do for the sober "tax" collector, the cop, the prison guard, the government school teacher, or any other government employee-- even if their job would still exist in a free society (but wouldn't be financed by theft, and no one would be forced to use their "services").

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Parental responsibility and the internet

My eight year-old daughter loves the internet.

While I see how much it is helping her learn so many things, and increasing her reading ability enormously, I know there are dangers.

I have to watch and make sure she doesn't give out personal information, or her location. And have explained why it isn't something I want her to do.

I ask her to let me know if anyone gets "too interested" in her- although her interaction seems to be limited (so far) to posting comments on Youtube videos.

I pay attention to what she finds and wants to show me- and sometimes it is something I have to warn her about, or explain. I'm always there, and I don't judge her for what she finds interesting or scary. That's parenting.

The benefits of her being online outweigh- to me- the dangers. But I know it is my responsibility to watch out and protect her.

I see some parents who seem to resent that necessity, and fall back on "parental blocking" and such, but it's a job I willingly take on. If it weren't the internet, it would be something else. It's always something.

I don't want "laws" or anything else advocated, passed, or enforced to supposedly "protect" her.

Out there in the real world, there are no "parental blocks". And, kids will always find a way around them anyway. Might as well step up and start helping the kids learn to navigate the world now.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

.

Statism is an empty shell

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Recently one of my blog posts was copied in its entirety and posted as a comment on a news story about a cop who was whining about being disrespected in a business. The commenter did supply a link to my original post- and even if he hadn't, that's not one of those things I get too worked up over. The ideas are what matter; not me or where the ideas come from.

But, what was most interesting to me was the hatred the commenter received in reply.

Subsequent comments went through the Statist Parrot Playbook: "If you don't like cops, move to Somalia", "You hate cops, but just wait until you need one to come save you", and all the usual statist gibberish. Including those who didn't do anything but spew hatred and insults.

But... not one commenter had anything of substance to add. Not one. No arguments explaining why the post was wrong. Nothing based in reason or ethics. Zero. Nothing but silly statist talking points and insults.

Because statism has nothing of substance underneath it.

Statism is nothing but empty cowardice. I suspect that even the parts of statism which look like hatred or other negative drives are just cowardice manifesting as something more toxic. Statism is illogical, unethical, immoral (judged by morality which is ethical), and cowardly.

Cowards are dangerous. And they resent those who aren't cowards- if they can even wrap their minds around the lack of cowardice. Which looks unlikely when I read comments by statists.

In a way, the lack of substance coming from triggered statists is reassuring. Even though they are still dangerous, they have already lost the war. They just may not know it yet.

Keep your head up and your eyes open. We've got this.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Statism is cowardice

Yes, I have said it before, and I'll continue to say it: all statism is, at its very foundation, cowardice. Crippling fear of something. Or crippling fear of nearly everything.

You can tell what the statist fears by looking at the "laws" he supports or advocates.

I have a really hard time understanding this all-encompassing fear.

I have never considered myself a brave person. I still don't. But when I see the cowardice of the statist, it is hard to avoid becoming convinced I am very brave compared to the "bravest" of them.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Anti-gun laws take our protection

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 17, 2016)

As long as people exist, there will be bad people harming others. I realize this is upsetting news- it saddens me, too.

The belief that "laws" will stop bad people is one of the most dangerous delusions ever to take root. Whether in a free society or a police state, bad people will do bad things.

One benefit of a free society will be the lack of "laws" helping attackers carry out their evil plans. Such as the anti-gun "laws" which gave the Orlando night club murderer the armed advantage and time to kill.

To be perfectly frank, that's all anti-gun "laws" do. They filter out the guns which might be used to defend you, while being powerless against the guns which are used to murder. It boggles my mind how anyone could believe this is a good idea, or increases safety. If someone is set on murder, a rule or a sign by the door isn't going to stop him.

Those who believe in "laws", rather than in rights or in how people actually behave, keep pushing for more of the same. Ignoring natural rights never works out.

If everyone would live by the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP)-- the idea which defines libertarians-- life would be better. The simplest way I have seen the ZAP expressed, by libertarian author L. Neil Smith, is "the fundamental human right not to be physically attacked- or threatened with attack- if you have not attacked anybody else." Self defense isn't an attack.

It would be nice if the whole world were libertarian, committed to "live and let live" and respecting the property of others. But it isn't, yet. You can even go on hating anyone you want to hate, if you feel you must, as long as you leave them to live as they see fit.

Of course, most already live by this principle, they just try to carve out bizarre exceptions for certain aggressive folk, due to the "jobs" these people hold. Exceptions are imaginary.

In a libertarian world, life would still go on much the same. There would still be struggles, difficulties, and bullies. Your problems would change, but they wouldn't go away.

So practice dealing with the problems you have, in the world as it now exists, without violating anyone and making things worse.

The best way to make the world a little more humane and sane- a little more libertarian- is to put this into practice in your own life today. A libertarian world, one person at a time.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online. .

Dead bullies

The worst thing about the shot cops is how it has inspired so many to bend over backwards to kiss cop butt.

If someone shoots a rapist or two, no one suddenly feels compelled to reassure other rapists that we still love them. No businesses put up signs saying they support rapists.

Then I see people also tripping all over themselves to say it isn't OK to use force to defend yourself from aggressors if those aggressors wear a badge. That's insane. And evil.

If you don't want to be shot for being an aggressor, stop aggressing and distance yourself from any gang activity which involves aggression (or property violations). It's really not that hard to understand. Actions have consequences even if you believe you are hiding behind the "law".

While you have the absolute human right to use violence to defend yourself from aggression and theft, it may not be the smartest move you can make. Sorry; that's just the way it is. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it. Their gang is larger than the number of people who would stand with you, so defending yourself from their violations will result in your death. Only you can decide if this is the moment it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

While I don't encourage you to shoot cops, I will never grieve for a dead bully.

-

Think about helping- If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

It's been over 100, but it's a dry heat...

Just in case anyone would like to help, I need money for a home AC repair. The humans and felines thank you.

.

Good people can't support cops

You can't be a good person, who is consistent and knowledgeable about police and the "laws" they enforce, and continue to support police.

It simply isn't possible.

I know this may hurt your feelings, and you might want to jump in to support nice Uncle John, the cop. But don't bother.

Nothing you could say, no excuses you could make, can change reality.

So, is your choice to be a decent person, or to continue to support cops? You have made the choice whether you know it or not.

(Here is a good article for those who would consider themselves "Christians", but who still support cops and the "laws" they enforce. It has its flaws, but don't we all?)

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Please think, and share

It never fails to amaze me that I can read perfectly normal, natural things that seem completely self-evident-- but which never occurred to me until I read them.

It happens every day. At least once, usually more.

It's why "we" need many different minds, thinking ALL THE TIME.

No one person can think of everything. Or even a tiny fraction of all that needs to be thought.

So, think. Then let me know what you come up with.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Suppose there were a gang...

... A gang which required members to rape, pillage, and attack people as a condition of membership. A gang which financed all its activities, and bought all its clothing and equipment, with money it stole from the local population. A gang which bragged about driving nice cars stolen from people they attacked. Any member who didn't commit those acts on a regular basis would be kicked out, and quite probably be subject to revenge by the other members.

As a condition of gang membership, you are agreeing to pretend other people's property rights can't apply to you. You pretend no one has the right of association where you are concerned- if someone tries to walk away when you insist on talking to them, the gang's rules say you can murder them. If someone tries to defend themselves from unwanted physical contact- or from even worse- the gang's rules say you can murder them. The rules you impose on others don't apply to you.

If you are a member of this gang you are openly admitting support for what the gang does. When you wear the gang colors, you are identifying yourself as a member in good standing. You are leaving no room for mistaken impressions of what you are, what you do, and what you support.

Any non-member caught wearing the gang colors or claiming to be a member would be kidnapped and caged, robbed, and quite possibly killed by actual members of the gang. The membership must be kept pure. There is no room for pretenders.

Sometimes the gang's members actually do helpful things. This is what the gang and its supporters want everyone believing the gang is all about, but it is actually a small and uncommon part of what the gang does. In fact, it is rare enough to be newsworthy when it happens.

The rapes, theft, and murders committed in the name of the gang are said to be committed by a "few bad apples", even though a "good apple" who didn't do those things- or at least turn a blind eye to those who do- would be kicked out of the gang and targeted for revenge. By staying in the gang, a member is endorsing all the gang's activities- official and unofficial.

The gang has done a good job convincing your family, friends, and neighbors that without them, other gangs would commit the same acts, but that this would somehow be worse; it would be chaos and mean the end of civilization. It is a lie, but few are willing to admit they are being lied to, and many actually believe it is true.

"Polite society"- particularly including newspapers and television and radio stations- ignores the nature of the gang, and instead praises the members for the few good deeds done- deeds that don't require gang membership to perform. They also ignore the evil nature of the acts that only members of the gang can get away with committing. Those who refuse to ignore the institutional evil are ostracized.

When a member of the gang gets killed while wearing the gang colors, "Polite Society" weeps and wails and tears at its clothing, acting as though the death came out of nowhere and was completely beyond understanding. No matter what the gang members have done recently, and no matter that the supposed "good apples" didn't disavow the acts of the members who committed the acts. Polite Society demands everyone weep and wail along with them, and voice their loyalty to the gang over and over again, lest they be thought of as horrible, uncivilized monsters.

I'm not Polite Society. I can't grieve when members of the gang are killed. Even if they weren't currently attacking the innocent, by remaining in the gang and wearing the gang colors openly, they are declaring themselves an enemy to everything good and civilized. How can anyone see the deaths of these gang members as a "bad thing"?

Well, this gang actually does exist. It infests every town and city in America, and in most of the world. They are the police- the Blue Line Gang (in America). They pretend they have no choice in the acts they commit because politicians made up "laws" by saying magic words which made their perverted opinions "official". Never mind that Nuremberg proved this to be a worthless defense. Individually, they each have the ability to refuse to do evil, even if a politician says they must. And, if a person can't avoid committing these acts without removing himself from the Blue Line Gang, then to be a good person he MUST quit the gang, regardless of the personal costs. If I have a job and my boss tells me I am required to overcharge a customer or lose my job, I can't remain in the job and still be a decent person. It simply isn't possible.

It doesn't matter if you believe these "laws" are a good idea, or even "necessary". It doesn't matter if the lack of them scares you. Any "law" which seeks to control something other than aggression or property violations is a counterfeit "law"- the few that are left are unnecessary laws.

In the absence of police some people might get away with violating life, liberty, and property of others. The existence of police guarantees it.

This is why there is no such thing as a "good cop", and why there can never be. It is self contradictory.

The police is where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face. Without them no evil ruler could impose his will on large numbers of people- people would simply kill him in self defense. Which is why politicians work so hard to whip up support for cops.

No good person can remain consistently good and continue to support the police. It simply isn't possible. I know good people who do support the police, but by doing so they are being inconsistent, and actually being evil at that moment. Withdraw your support; be a good person all the time.

The sooner you accept it, internalize it, and act on it, the sooner you will be free.

(Also published in The Libertarian Enterprise 7-17-2016)

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

There's Polite Society, and then there's reality.

Throughout history, Polite Society- the "nice people" whom society embraces and welcomes (including newspapers and other mass media)- has honored or worshiped those who use aggression and theft on behalf of the State. At least, that particular Polite Society's State.

Polite Society cheered the goose-stepping swastika jockies.
Polite Society applauded the soldiers who indiscriminately slaughtered Native women and children.
Polite Society supported the cops for killing scary "Brown People" who dared venture to the "good side of town", or those cops who turned a blind eye to the freelance bullies who did it.

The news media of the day reflected this support, and probably did more than its share of creating it.

Today, it hasn't really changed one bit. Even if the bullies and their victims change a little depending on time and place, the story has always been the same.

If you want to be a part of Polite Society, you worship government's thugs unconditionally.
"Without them, there'd be ANARCHY!"
"Rough men, doing rough things, so you can sleep sound at night."
And other silly platitudes.

How about the truth: bad guys, initiating force and theft, unhinging actions from consequences, making you less safe- but fooling you into believing you'd be in danger without them agitating desperate people to strike against you and yours.

See, this is why I am not welcome in Polite Society.

I want to be seen as a nice guy, not as a jerk. But, if accepting theft and aggression is necessary for that, the price is just too high.

Cops ARE scum. As are politicians, copsuckers, and everyone else who supports the State.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Government working as designed

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 10, 2016)

I'm sure you've noticed, but this seems to be an exceptionally angry presidential election cycle. More than usual, those who hate the candidates are setting the tone, rather than those who support them. Just about everyone who cares passionately for one or the other seems to be behaving like a rabid animal.

People don't simply have a preference; they may like their candidate- or not- but they hate or fear the other candidates beyond all reason. Some then act on this hatred and fear.

Is this how elections are going to be from now on?

If you don't agree with the other candidate, use logic and reason to counter his (or her) claims. Or if that's too hard, use simplistic emotion to manipulate agreement. Whatever you do, don't use aggression. If you attack his supporters with fists, rocks, or eggs, you're admitting you can't come up with anything rational, so you are striking out like an impulsive child.

When the best advertisement for a candidate is those who oppose her (or him), perhaps it's time to look in a mirror. It's self-defeating behavior. It would be discouraging if I expected better of those who play politics.

Presidents are largely figureheads. If you look to them as role models, you are grasping at straws. No one who seeks political office-- the power to rule others-- should be your hero, ever. The particular person in office matters less than does the existence of the dangerous office.

I oppose all candidates and the offices they seek, on principle, so I don't have a horse in this race. If I did, seeing how voters act would put me off of elections for at least this year, and probably drive me away from them forever. Why would I want to be associated with a ritual which inspires such behavior?

But this is what you get when you allow someone power which was never meant for a person-- the power to tell others how they are permitted to live, and what they are required to do with their life and property. Only bad people will seek that kind of power, so only bad people will gain it.

Don't be surprised or disappointed at the outcome. The system is working just as it was designed to work; the only possible way it can work. In every election, only government wins. It's nothing to get angry about. It's something to recognize and refuse to be a part of. Are you brave enough?

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.

Government "solutions"

When I see governmental approaches to anything, this is what I see:

"It sure is hard to get the ball to stay on the tee!
It must just be impossible."

I see people turning things upside down and making them harder than they really are, by not thinking things through. Actually, by being idiots.

If you still try to fix issues with government, you need to stop, think about what you are doing, and if you still can't figure out you're holding it upside down, walk away from the table. Let others handle it.

You have all you need to solve everything which can be solved, and yet, by invoking theft and aggression, you are making it almost impossible. You are making it worse.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Consistency

It scares and confuses a LOT of people.

They want you to make exceptions for those they worship.
They want you to make exceptions for State policies and "laws" they like.
They want you to make exceptions for things they choose to not understand.
They simply want and need exceptions to give room for some inconsistent positions.

And, I try hard to not leave room for inconsistencies- but I'm quite sure I'm not perfect.

It won't gain you friends among these people to be consistent. I've known that for a long time.

Although I've seen it for years, it still disappoints me every time I am reminded of it- at least when I see it in people who claim to love liberty. I don't really expect it of statists, since all statism hinges on inconsistency.

Which leads me to something else.

Whenever I find people disliking me for some of my opinions, it inspires me to examine those opinions. It's very possible I am wrong. If I'm unsure about something, I'll let you know (abortion, for example). But as long as I'm sure, I won't be timid about saying so. And my certainty is always provisional; subject to change in the face of new information. But, when I look at their objections and see inconsistencies in their position, as much as I might want to change my views to make them like me again, I just can't do it. I would end up disliking myself. It's not worth the cost.

It bothers me that some people dislike me. It shouldn't, I know. But it does. If I were doing this for popularity, I'm going about it the wrong way. I should be blogging about Minecraft, or comic book hero movies, or the new Pokemon game. But those things are not important to me. Maybe I shouldn't be blogging at all, if I only wanted to be liked.

I'm not one of those who tries to make people dislike me, or gets some sort of validation from it. I have never once thought "everyone hates me, which just proves I'm right!"

And, yet...

That probably explains the drop in page views recently. I had wondered if the tone of my writing had changed after my daughter's tragic death, and was causing readers to drift away. But now I suspect it may be something else more fundamental. And I guess it explains the steady drop in subscriptions and donations over the past few months, too. I know some is due to the economy, but apparently not all. People aren't going to support those they dislike- I wouldn't expect them to, nor would I want them to. It violates the "everything voluntary" position I support. If you want out, now is the perfect time to end your subscription without guilt.

Maybe this is me being consistent again, or maybe this is me being inconsistent, crazy, stubborn, or whatever. I can't accurately judge that from this perspective.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Time to declare a war on cops

My latest offering from The Libertarian Enterprise. Read it there (and then read the rest of this week's edition).

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

"Two party system"

Of course, I think v*ting amounts to continuing to play a rigged game with known cheaters, and expecting to sometimes win. And, even if you do win, all you get by winning is the chance to force your will on the losers for a time. Not ethical behavior.

But, that's not the only v*te-related craziness I see.

One related trap many v*ters fall into is believing the "two party system" is official, as if enshrined in the Constitution (which is a whole 'nother can of Ebola, but I'll leave the poor old CONstitution alone for now).

The "two party system", if you believe it is anything other than one State party with two play-acting, "opposition" sides for the sake of appearances, is nothing more than a temporary circumstance which happens to be in fashion. It has no more permanence than a gritty whirlwind.

Not only are the current "mainstream parties" just a fleeting accident of history, there is nothing special about having only two "mainstream" parties.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

A few observations on cops

The outpouring of love for cops that has occurred online since the cops were killed in Dallas makes me sick. I mean, actually sick.

Against my better judgement I posted several thoughts and observations on this- not the specific incident, but just about all the fawning over cops I saw.

So, I'll share them here. You can decide if I'm crazy, like some said...

If you get upset when cops get killed "in the line of duty", but don't feel the same when burglars, muggers, rapists, and other freelance bad guys get killed for "just doing their job", too, you might have a problem being consistent.

.---.

The idea that 'people should just put up with the violations of murderous bullies because those bullies wear badges' is horrific.

.---.

I have spoken to cops and people in training to become cops.

If you believe they aren't being trained to view you and me as "criminals they just haven't caught yet", you are delusional.

They are being carefully trained into an "Us vs Them" mindset, and you and I are the "Them".

They are also brainwashed into feeling entitled to do whatever they want, and expecting you to still worship them for it.

They are being trained that you have no rights other than those they allow you to have, and that their word is LAW. Instant compliance is compulsory, and the penalty for hesitation is death.

Cops are the most aggressive gang in America. The Blue Line Gang. They are NOT the good guys. Period.

If you support them, you are part of the problem.

.---.

Giving thieves, murderers, and other aggressors a pass because of their "job" is absurd.

.---.

I will suggest a way I think is much better, in most cases, than shooting cops... if you care to listen.

I think a better tactic to use against cops would be for people to simply ignore their worthless hides.

Do what you are going to do as long as it doesn't violate anyone else- regardless of the idiotic opinions of lawflinging bullies and their hired thugs. Ignore the enforcers and stand with those doing so when it looks like the Blue Line Gang is going to violate them. A solid line of gritty, determined defense for their intended victims would cause them to back down faster than a prosecutor facing a Clinton.

Shun them in business and personal life. Turn your back (figuratively, and literally if you don't think they are likely to shoot you in the back at the moment) anytime they are present.

Cops don't deserve respect, they deserve contempt. They have earned it in spades. It's time they are paid their wages.

.---.

Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face.

Yet, they believe they are entitled to continue committing acts of enforcement against their ethical and moral superiors without consequence, because consequences for their behavior are so rare.

They are shocked, angered, and stunned when consequences catch up to them.

I want one of two things to happen:
either cops change their behavior to the extent they are no longer cops (no longer violating life, liberty, or property as part of "doing their job"), or I want them to face consequences daily; each and every time they enforce a counterfeit "law" or otherwise violate someone.

I don't "need" cops, and neither do you.

.---.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating:

It's not always smart to do what you have a natural human right to do.

You always have a right to defend yourself and others from aggressors or gangs of aggressors. Always.

And, cops are aggressors (and thieves).

But, they are a popular gang. They are getting less popular, through their own actions, but they are still too popular to successfully defend yourself from and survive. They are outnumbered on a massive scale, but too many of their victims still come flying to their defense.

So, work on eroding that popular support, and maybe you'll never have to defend yourself from the Blue Line Gang.

It is NEVER OK to support cops. There is no excuse for it. Don't coddle those who do. Supporting cops is as disgusting as supporting rapists and murderers (those who aren't cops, too, I mean), and those who do it should be reminded of this fact.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

"War on police"?

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

The last thing a town needs

The local police chief is complaining that he needs the town to authorize him to hire another cop. Which also means buying another flashing-light-sporting Mobile Scummery Unit with which to chase down and rob more drivers.

Of course, there's no real crime here. If you look at the local victims of law enforcement you'll notice mainly people who ingested or possessed substances the State has formed a negative opinion of. With a few DWIs (although those are caught by someone other than the town cops, like state stormtroopers or the shire reaver department) thrown in. Usually several "driving without a license", fleeing a molester- sorry, I mean "evading arrest", and the occasional "refusal to identify", and some "illegal gun carry" for those they can't molest using another excuse.

Absolutely ZERO "need" for another cop.

"But all the other towns this size have three officers", he whines. "A third officer would free me and the other officer to take days off, and have someone available to respond when the others are busy."

Fortunately, the response I have seen to his suggestion is unanimously negative. Eventually, I know the cowards of the city council will give the bully what he wants. I have seen it too many times.

As everyone knows, adding more cops adds more crime. They will go around looking for more "offenses"- and will undoubtedly find them. Must justify that paycheck, you know.

It means less self-responsibility as people get brainwashed and lazy, depending on cops to do what they should be doing for themselves. This degrades quality of life for everyone. And will eventually give justification for even more "laws" and cops.

This means there will be yet another cop patrolling the school zone looking for "distracted drivers" or those whose "speed" is completely safe, but exceeds the arbitrary "limit", or people who don't fully stop at the stop signs (following the example of said cops who cruise around while staring absent-mindedly at their computer screen instead of paying attention to the kids).

This means justification for stealing more money from residents through "taxation"- unless the cops manage to steal enough through "fines" to pay for themselves.

Cops are scum, and the last thing this town needs is another sanctioned scumwad molesting the residents.

Instead of hiring another, fire them all.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

The FBI endorses nullification... sort of

(A Patreon/subscriber-only post. Come on, subscribe! You know you want to.)

The FBI: Yes, Hillary broke the law. No, she shouldn't be punished. Don't get any ideas, because YOU are not Hillary.

This is nullification on an individual scale. Applied to one "special" individual in one specific case. Not that I don't believe she could get away with it as many times as it takes to protect her.

The thing is, I don't really care.

The "law" is stupid. There should be no government secrets. L. Neil Smith suggests that keeping government secrets should be the only capital crime. Would you allow your butler to keep secrets relating to his job from you?

Of course, there should be no FBI to investigate or rule on this. The agency is unconstitutional and demonstrably criminal. They earned the name "Feral Baby Incinerators".

Then again, there should be no government to have an FBI, a "secretary of state", secrets, a Constitution, or "laws". It's another case of striking at the root, rather than thrashing the branches.

I guess this is why I wasn't that worried over whether Hillary would be prosecuted. She broke the law, sure, but I have no respect for the law, or those it protects, or those who would enforce it. I say expose all government secrets and let people see exactly what government is. If it takes a lying bully such as Hillary to bring down the farce, so be it.

Of course, this proclamation from the FBI should have resulted in the immediate release of Chelsea Manning and the end of threats to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange and everyone else being punished for doing the exact same thing Hillary did... but it won't. They are not Hillary, either.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Expectations of perfection

I believe I have noticed another difference between myself and most statists: I don't expect perfection.

I'm accepting of the fact that the world isn't perfect, and will never be perfect. I try to adapt to the problems as they crop up. Sometimes I don't do well; other times I do OK.

But, the statists around me seem really stymied by simple imperfections. They wring their hands and gnash their teeth, and seem to have a hard time letting go.

What does bother me is intentional flaws- especially when the solution is simple.

"Taxation" is wrong, because it is theft, and the solution is so simple: just stop doing it. The world would survive just fine. Civilization would thrive. Innovation would be unchained. Yes, bullies and parasites would be inconvenienced, but that's a good thing.

And that's not the only simple solution to manufactured problems. Anti-gun "laws" empower murderers. End them.

Anti-business "laws" cripple the economy and impoverish individuals. End them.

The list could go on for many pages.

Yet, I don't expect perfection even in liberty. There will always be problems and flaws in the world. It's just that I see it as insane to pile unnecessary ones on top of the random and arbitrary ones which would exist anyway.

Somewhat related is the observation that statists assume intentions according to their preconceptions. They assume cops and "troops" mean well, even when their actions are completely evil. And they'll assume someone who isn't in one of their favored groups has the worst of intentions, no matter how well they behave. Myself, I go more by what they do than what they may have intended to do. I'd rather someone have bad intentions, but respect liberty, than someone to have the best of intentions, yet violate liberty. Call me silly, I suppose.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

.

Awaiting Bernie’s plan to help poor

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 3, 2016)

It's a rare thing for me to agree with a presidential candidate-- and rarer still for me to agree with an avowed socialist.

Bernie Sanders recently said it is "unacceptable" that nearly 47 million Americans live in poverty. Assuming his numbers are right-- not that it matters even if he's off by an order of magnitude or two-- that's too many. I agree with him. It is completely unacceptable.

So, does Bernie have an actual plan to fix it, or does he believe he can magically lift the poor by bringing down everyone else with taxes and regulations?

If one is honest about finding poverty unacceptable, one will support the steps required to solve it.

So, is Sanders ready to end taxation? To allow everyone, rich and poor, to keep all their money? To end all business taxes? Every corporate tax ends up being paid by the customer, because that's the economic reality of taxing businesses. Any business which doesn't figure every expense, including all taxes and government fees, into the final price the customer pays, will go out of business. No more jobs; no more of the benefits the business brings to society, including to you and the poor. Taxation is not the price we pay for a civilized society; civilized society is what we sometimes manage in spite of taxation. The poor can't afford taxation, and neither can you.

It's a necessary first step, but there are more.

The best way to lift someone out of poverty is to stop preventing them from earning money. Is Mr. Sanders willing to advocate for ending licensing requirements and business permits? Wealthy people can afford to pay those ridiculous fees, but a poor person wanting to start her own business probably can't. If they dare to do business anyway, their business will be stolen from them by government employees "just doing my job", and they will be fined or jailed. All under the claim of "protecting society". Is he willing to end the criminalization of acts of free enterprise between consenting parties?

The poor are being "protected" into poverty, and kept there by red tape, regulations, and laws.

Widespread poverty should be a solved problem.

Or does Bernie plan to keep doing more of the same to trap those who are already impoverished in their current circumstances and make others join them; preventing both from helping themselves? Because that's been the standard government tactic for a century or so, and it isn't helping anyone but politicians.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.

Statist's opinions

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion!"

Yes, and you are also entitled to commit suicide by drinking Drano, too. So? Why yap about it?

When someone declares their entitlement to an opinion, you can be certain they are aware on some level that their opinion is wrong. They instinctively know their opinion has been weighed by reality and has been found wanting. They may not be willing to admit it, and may be desperately trying to carve out a safe space for their sad little flawed opinion with this classic gem.

An example (one of many*) of this is when an anti-libertarian is confronted with objective facts showing that there can be no such thing as a "good cop". They really don't like this one, and will unfailingly try to save face by whipping out their entitlement to an opinion.

Yes, they can hold the opinion that there are "good cops", but reality shows otherwise. Sure, there can be nice cops, just as there can be nice Mafioso, nice rapists, nice burglars, and nice murderers (at least when they aren't committing the acts which define them). But by being any one of those, including a cop, they eliminate any possibility of being a good person.

When this is pointed out, the "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" is one last desperate shot at trying to not look like an whining ethical weakling.

It never works.

-

*I also see it a lot with anti-gun bigots and "taxation" advocates. Like I say, basically anti-liberty bigots of all stripes who come to realize they can't support their flawed opinion when measured against reality.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

In-duh-pendence Day

"How can we turn a specifically anti-State holiday into a grovelling celebration of the State and a worship service for its bullies, goons, thugs, and tools?"

"The Fourth of July", once known as "Independence Day", depresses me. It has for years now.

I'm not a huge fan of fireworks- I'd prefer actual gunshots and such; noise with a purpose.

I don't enjoy setting off my own fireworks, and wouldn't do it at all if it weren't for my 8 year-old daughter wanting them.

And I really dislike driving in horrible traffic, and sitting in red, white, and blue crowds to watch a government-sponsored fireworks display, complete with patriotic statist war marches. Ugh!!

I am depressed that almost everyone has turned the day into a celebration of government "allowing" them to have (a teeny tiny bit of) "freedom", and worshiping the military. While proudly obeying the "laws" against "open containers", smoking pot, open carry, and whatever else the bullies dream up "laws" about, of course. While law enforcement thugs swagger through the crowd looking to cause trouble. It's sickening, really.

I'd be thrilled to see some displays of independence instead of fireworks. People breaking counterfeit "laws" and defending themselves from bullies with badges trying to commit acts of enforcement against them. That would give me a bigger boost than any fireworks display ever conceived.

Yes, I know I can focus on what I want the day to be about. But be careful of celebrating actual independence too openly; it could get you kidnapped or murdered by enforcers in Police State USA.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Sheltering their ignorance

Statists are much like obstinate children. They don't want to be told anything. Particularly anything which threatens what they believe (or wish to believe).

They'll repeat something clearly untrue or nonsense, but don't want to listen or hear the truth that exposes what they just said to be untrue.  No matter how obvious the truth is.

Sure, you could probably explain reality to them so clearly even they would understand- reality really isn't that hard to explain or understand- but they won't listen. They can't. It would scare them too badly to have their worldview shattered like that.

The only way statists can remain statists is by refusing to learn.

Statism is a sad condition.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

No such critter as an aggressive good guy

Drug dealers are better people than cops.

You can deal drugs and not be a bad guy. Don't initiate force. Don't violate property. Don't defraud. Sure, prohibition makes it harder, and attracts people who are already aggressive thieves and cheats into the job. But, it's not a requirement for doing that work.

You can not be a cop without being a bad guy. It simply isn't possible to be a cop without initiating force and violating property as a daily requirement of doing that work- the work of committing acts of enforcement.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.