Saturday, September 30, 2017
Nationalists, flags, and "leftist commies"
I see that the Sportsballer/Holy Pole Quilt flap is quickly separating the liberty respecting individualists from the collectivist State apologists. And it's not pretty.
Yes, your boss can probably force you to worship an idol while you are on the clock, but no decent boss would ever do that. And no self-respecting person should feel obligated to accept such a "job" offer. (Of course, thinking this way is why I am perpetually broke, so feel free to disregard my opinion.)
Declining to participate in a government extremist ritual isn't much of a "protest" if you ask me. Especially since kneeling instead of standing and repeating the chant is still participating. It doesn't even approach what I would consider a protest. But nationalists are easily triggered.
I also realize that the sportsballers have no clue. They don't understand what they think they are protesting, in most cases. Maybe a few do, but for most it's still just a form of going with the crowd.
But, if you are going to start ranting about how the "protesters" are "commies" or something to that effect, then you are aligning with the State, in the worst way possible.
Against liberty.
Against everything the country you believe you are standing with supposedly stood for.
You are choosing collectivism over liberty.
You are siding with Rulers.
You are the one acting like a commie, regardless of your projection and angry words to the contrary.
If you choose statist rituals over liberty, you are not on the right side, even if some of those you rant against are also wrong.
Friday, September 29, 2017
"Police corruption" is meaningless
Are police corrupt?
Is the mafia corrupt?
Would the old Chicago mob have been OK if Al Capone* had just cracked down on the corruption in his gang? Or, was the problem more systemic than that? Was the mob functioning exactly as it was intended to?
If your purpose, or at least the real-world manifestation of your "purpose", is evil, how can the word "corrupt" even have any meaning to your situation?
What would a non-corrupt street gang look like? If you eliminate the evil deeds, nothing is left. It is no longer a gang, but is just a non-archating social club.
For police to not be "corrupt" they would have to be funded voluntarily (no "tax" funding at all).
They would have to stop enforcing almost all "laws" and only spend their "on-the-job" time protecting life, liberty, and property.
They would stop enforcing any "law" that forbids you from doing something they are allowed to do (carrying a gun into a post office or school, for example). Yes, this is related to the previous point, but important enough to separate out.
They would have to come down hard on any cop who violated life, liberty, or property, and not form a "blue wall of silence" around him.
They would be accountable for any violations, and would accept the restitution they owe-- personally and individually, not paid to the victims by the "taxpayers".
They wouldn't "patrol", but would only come when invited.
In other words, they wouldn't be cops.
-
*Yeah, I realize his mob was less corrupt than today's police, but ignore that for now.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Government needs you (to lie)
Government is empowered by lies. Its own, of course, but those aren't the most vital lies.
It needs your lies in order to survive. Truth kills government, but telling the truth has a heavy cost.
Expressing support for cops is either lying, or is actively supporting evil.
Denying that "taxation" is theft is lying.
Insisting government can be good is a lie.
Lies lies lies.
Those who want you to lie will look for ways to hurt you if you tell the truth about their gang. And they have a lot of power at their disposal. In the long run, lying in support of government is still more destructive and harmful. This isn't an exercise you'll survive-- but neither will they. No one gets out alive.
Lying for government brings temporary comfort, at a price.
Supporting government is an exercise in denial. It is denying the truth in favor of lies. It is support for the worst humans can do to each other. Why not just bite the bullet and be honest, instead?
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
How to waste your time
Arguing for the "legitimacy" of the State (or government) with an anarchist-- using legal definitions and statist concepts-- is as pointless as threatening atheists with Hell for not believing.
It's just not going to work.
You are speaking gibberish while trying to defend the indefensible to someone who doesn't believe in the things you put your faith in.
And even bothering to respond, as an anarchist, to the statist making the "argument" is probably a waste of time.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Child sacrifice- "everyone does it"
"Public school"- or, more honestly: kinderprison.
Does it magically stop being child abuse just because "everyone does it"?
How does that work, exactly?
Would it not be child abuse to sacrifice your children to Moloch if that was the expected thing to do in your society?
Kinderprison is child sacrifice to the god of The State. Even if their bodies survive, their minds are less likely to. Almost no one escapes without at least some mind damage after going through "public school".
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Why not just ignore monuments?
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 23, 2017- running a bit late.)
If I were to give advice to the Leftist protesters across the country, it would include this: ignore the monuments of your enemies.
I have no love for those who built and strengthened the government. Any government. I consider it ridiculous to memorialize such people in bronze. But their statues can serve as reminders of past mistakes. Plus, they are useful pigeon roosts.
When you remove statues and monuments, you haven't erased bad events of the past. You've hidden their reminders. You've swept those events under a rug. It's like covering evidence of historic crimes. Leave them on display to remind yourself "Never again!"
There are also those who practically worship those symbols; they might as well be idols. Some people get part of their identity from them; some of their self-worth. Tearing down those statues is only going to cause more trouble. It's going to fragment society even further. This is not the time for that.
I'm not in favor of paying a solitary cent to ever again create another statue to honor a politician or member of the government's military. But, of those which are already there and were funded with tax money, the money is long gone; it will never be returned to its rightful owner. Those paid for with voluntary donations, while they shouldn't be on "public land", are otherwise none of my business.
So why not simply ignore the symbols you find repulsive?
I see courthouses, police stations, public schools, and city halls as symbols of oppression and tyranny. They aren't just reminders of a terrible past, but are monuments to contemporary slavery-- a concrete burden on individuals, and thus on civilization, today. Yet I don't generally advocate for them to be demolished.
As long as the underlying beliefs which prop up those structures remain, you and I would be forced to pay for their replacements. It's those archaic ideas and beliefs which need to be abolished; the physical structures are only a symptom.
Could you find tolerance for the symbols you despise so you'll have the moral high ground when someone starts calling for the demolition of the historic symbols you value?
If you make it socially permissible to destroy monuments to things you hate, you make it acceptable for your enemies to tear down monuments to things you love, too. Do you really want to go down this path and see where it leads? This is what comes of politics-- consider yourself warned.
If I were to give advice to the Leftist protesters across the country, it would include this: ignore the monuments of your enemies.
I have no love for those who built and strengthened the government. Any government. I consider it ridiculous to memorialize such people in bronze. But their statues can serve as reminders of past mistakes. Plus, they are useful pigeon roosts.
When you remove statues and monuments, you haven't erased bad events of the past. You've hidden their reminders. You've swept those events under a rug. It's like covering evidence of historic crimes. Leave them on display to remind yourself "Never again!"
There are also those who practically worship those symbols; they might as well be idols. Some people get part of their identity from them; some of their self-worth. Tearing down those statues is only going to cause more trouble. It's going to fragment society even further. This is not the time for that.
I'm not in favor of paying a solitary cent to ever again create another statue to honor a politician or member of the government's military. But, of those which are already there and were funded with tax money, the money is long gone; it will never be returned to its rightful owner. Those paid for with voluntary donations, while they shouldn't be on "public land", are otherwise none of my business.
So why not simply ignore the symbols you find repulsive?
I see courthouses, police stations, public schools, and city halls as symbols of oppression and tyranny. They aren't just reminders of a terrible past, but are monuments to contemporary slavery-- a concrete burden on individuals, and thus on civilization, today. Yet I don't generally advocate for them to be demolished.
As long as the underlying beliefs which prop up those structures remain, you and I would be forced to pay for their replacements. It's those archaic ideas and beliefs which need to be abolished; the physical structures are only a symptom.
Could you find tolerance for the symbols you despise so you'll have the moral high ground when someone starts calling for the demolition of the historic symbols you value?
If you make it socially permissible to destroy monuments to things you hate, you make it acceptable for your enemies to tear down monuments to things you love, too. Do you really want to go down this path and see where it leads? This is what comes of politics-- consider yourself warned.
Discriminate in the lessons you learn
Everyone can be your teacher. But be careful of what you learn.
You can learn something from anyone. If you ever run across someone you can't learn from, you have learned that there are people you can't learn from, and that would mean you learned something from them after all.
But... be very careful listening to people who believe in governing others, or who believe it's OK to archate.
When someone starts from a position that far off-base, you will need to be extra cautious in analyzing everything else they say.
So, even if Abraham Lincoln said some things you can learn from, he started from a position of superstition and ignorance. If you pay attention to things he said, without discriminating the good from the nonsense, you'll pay for it. Remember that at all times.
The same goes for anyone who believes governing others can be a positive thing. Whether they are military, a politician, a journalist, a bureaucrat, or whatever. If they are wrong about something so fundamental, you know the chances are high that they are wrong about other things-- even if things they say sound good.
So, weigh their words. Keep the gold, toss out the junk, and keep learning.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Government is a violation of the social contract
Of course government violates the "social contract". Any legitimate social contract isn't going to be what statists claim it is. It's going to be completely voluntary and opting out will always be an option. And you won't have to move away if you refuse to sign, either.
So, why is it that the superstitious beliefs called "the social contract" by statists are always the opposite?
They are coercive, imposed systems you can't opt out of. Yet, somehow they believe government-- the one they claim you are obligated to obey and support-- is a manifestation of a glorious "social contract", and this adds to the reasons (in their minds) you should obey and support this government.
It's crazytalk.
A true voluntary social contract, which you consented to with your eyes open and without signing away your right to back out if it becomes harmful to your life, liberty, or property, is only damaged by government. It is the opposite of what a real social contract would be.
Government is anti-social, and isn't even close to being a valid contract. Sign up with it if that's what you want. It's not for me.
Friday, September 22, 2017
Liberty out the Yinyang!
Several years ago, my online friend Kevin Wilmeth brought Taoism to my attention and sent me a copy of the Tao Te Ching. It turns out Taoism is an early libertarian philosophy, and is pretty interesting. (You probably knew that long before I did.)
Anyway, recently I saw a video that once again brought it to mind. This was a video on the Taoist symbol, the Yin and Yang, by Jordan B. Peterson.
In it he basically points out that too much chaos will kill you, but so will too much order. You need to be balanced between the two extremes to have a good, meaningful life. Relating that back to Yin & Yang, this balanced life follows the narrow curving line down the middle between Yin and Yang; between chaos and order. You need one foot in each domain.
I find this interesting because that narrow winding path has a name: libertarianism.
Liberty strikes the balance perfectly because of its self-limiting nature.
Added:
Another thought I had about this...
I've noticed that there are those pairs where both are good in their own way (chaos-order, masculine-feminine, day-night, etc.) and those where both are equally bad (authoritarian-decadence, fascism-nihilism). There don't seem to be any pairs where one is bad and the other is good (or neutral). Or, at least I haven't come up with any.
Thursday, September 21, 2017
The State-- societal cancer
A lot of liberty lovers aren't very fond of society. I'm not one of them.
Society can be good or bad. Just like some cultures are better than others (depending on their level of acceptance of archation), so are some societies better.
The State is a cancer on the good society. A parasite, draining the life out of the society, replacing it with rot and death. Replacing the social benefits of the economic means with the destruction of the political means. Choosing theft and aggression over voluntary interactions.
If a society develops cancer, maybe it means the society was already a bit sick; cancer isn't going to cure the sickness. Unless you consider death a "cure".
Maybe if you are suffering in a bad society, having cancer killing it off isn't all bad. But the chance of the State being worse than the society is too high-- societies can be good or bad, but there is no such thing as a "good State". Those odds are not in your favor.
Be grateful for the good things around you. Recognize the bad things-- and reject them.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Sorry to break it to you...
...but there are freelance bad people out there.
If you believe everything is a "false flag" you're as gullible as those who believe everything the mass media reports.
If everything's a false flag, then nothing ever occurs outside of government control. And that's obviously absurd. There probably are some false flags, but there are real, terrible events perpetrated by non-governmental thugs, too.
I don't blame people who suspect the possibility of a false flag with any event. But once credible people who have first-hand knowledge of the surrounding situation have counter evidence, let it go. Move onto the next possible false flag. Don't dig in your heels and call people nasty names just because they don't buy into your hysteria.
After the shootings at the library here, a guy on Facebook told me it was obviously a false flag. I didn't even say anything negative in response, other than to post a link to a previous post I had written about the "false flag" subject. So he said "Wow" and unfriended me.
I feel bad for people like him. This belief seems defeatist. If anything like this ever happens to him, how will his brain wrap around it? Will he still believe it's a false flag to pin on a conspiratorial government operation beyond his ability to fight? If he has concrete evidence to the contrary, will he think this is the one exception? Will he then get upset at those like himself who claim it's "just" another false flag?
Monday, September 18, 2017
The opposite of a polite society
An armed society is a polite society.
An unarmed "society" isn't a real society at all.
It's a feed lot.
A slaughter house.
A prison.
A slaughter house.
A prison.
The people in it are too helpless to be of any use to anyone but those who control the arms.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Governments need and breed wars
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 16, 2017)
If they have to debate it, declare it, or convince the public it's necessary, war is not justified. The only ethical war is the one where you have no choice; where you see the whites of their eyes coming down your street.
Fighting them "over there", so you don't have to "fight them here" makes you the aggressor; the invader. You have become what you claim to be fighting.
If you want the thrill of war, and want to go help someone else defend themselves from invaders coming down their street, go right ahead. At your own expense, and without dragging me into it.
But are you willing to die for a lie?
The North Korean government's intercontinental nuclear missiles will turn out to be as imaginary as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the Gulf of Tonkin "incident". But governments need war.
As Hermann Goering, Nazi military leader, said: "Naturally the common people don't want war.... But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along.... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Are you letting yourself be dragged along?
Even if the North Korean government has the claimed weapons, war isn't justified.
If one government has nuclear weapons, it is a hypocrite to forbid those same weapons to another government. No government is so special it can forbid others from doing the same thing it does. It's like an armed thug going into another thug's house and declaring he isn't allowed to own a gun to defend himself.
I have nothing against North Koreans. They should rise up and physically remove their dictator-- and keep repeating the process until there is no one left who is willing to rule.
Of course, this is something every population should do. It would be beneficial to civilization if the lust to govern were purged from the gene pool once and for all.
Unfortunately, many people want to be governed-- or want others to be governed-- and someone will always be sick enough to fill that desire. Those who govern need wars to prevent the people from noticing the government is doing most of the attacking and robbing. They need the people to believe someone else is the enemy. So government breeds war.
If they have to debate it, declare it, or convince the public it's necessary, war is not justified. The only ethical war is the one where you have no choice; where you see the whites of their eyes coming down your street.
Fighting them "over there", so you don't have to "fight them here" makes you the aggressor; the invader. You have become what you claim to be fighting.
If you want the thrill of war, and want to go help someone else defend themselves from invaders coming down their street, go right ahead. At your own expense, and without dragging me into it.
But are you willing to die for a lie?
The North Korean government's intercontinental nuclear missiles will turn out to be as imaginary as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the Gulf of Tonkin "incident". But governments need war.
As Hermann Goering, Nazi military leader, said: "Naturally the common people don't want war.... But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along.... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Are you letting yourself be dragged along?
Even if the North Korean government has the claimed weapons, war isn't justified.
If one government has nuclear weapons, it is a hypocrite to forbid those same weapons to another government. No government is so special it can forbid others from doing the same thing it does. It's like an armed thug going into another thug's house and declaring he isn't allowed to own a gun to defend himself.
I have nothing against North Koreans. They should rise up and physically remove their dictator-- and keep repeating the process until there is no one left who is willing to rule.
Of course, this is something every population should do. It would be beneficial to civilization if the lust to govern were purged from the gene pool once and for all.
Unfortunately, many people want to be governed-- or want others to be governed-- and someone will always be sick enough to fill that desire. Those who govern need wars to prevent the people from noticing the government is doing most of the attacking and robbing. They need the people to believe someone else is the enemy. So government breeds war.
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Answer to the "unanswerable challenge"
A prominent gun rights blogger* calls this his "challenge no one has been able to answer". There's a reason no one has been able to answer it: it is unanswerable by design.
Here's his "challenge":
"Produce credible data – something that can be independently validated – that 'amnesty' and a 'pathway to citizenship' for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and even legally, with current culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners. Show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts.
Show us how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts, and reverse gains made to date. The sudden passing of Justice Scalia, and the precarious balances of the Heller and McDonald decisions, ought to drive home for all how dangerously critical that is.
[S]how how all credible estimates putting the disparity at over 70% Democrat and anti-gun are wrong.
How about some verifiable numbers to refute my concerns?"
I knew the answer almost immediately, but kept quiet for a long time for the sake of politeness. But it just keeps being brought up over and over, and it's a little embarrassing. It's almost as bad as a supposedly knowledgeable gun owner lecturing a newbie about the "shoulder thing that goes up" and why it should be "illegal".
So here is my answer, and I know it won't win me any friends.
Let's look at an equivalent "challenge" first and see why it is unanswerable...
"Produce credible data – something that can be independently validated – that a government big and powerful enough to "secure the borders", keep track of all immigrants, deport illegal immigrants, and control immigration to the extent you demand WILL NOT abuse that power and become a Soviet- or Nazi-style tyranny. Show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in the further degradation of property rights, the right of association, the right to be secure in your home from government invasion, and the right to travel without being stopped to show "your papers, please".
Show us how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts, and reverse gains made to date.
How about some verifiable numbers to refute my concerns?
I'm waiting. Show me. Not speculation. Not guesswork. Not anecdotes. Hard verifiable proof of how the future WILL turn out; not how it might.
You can't, can you. Because I am demanding the impossible, just as his "challenge" does.
The "challenge" is an illogical, emotional demand without a rational, logical answer. This is worse than asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It's a trick of sophistry, not an argument.
The fact is, the only way to enforce any "immigration policy" is by violating life, liberty, and property (and the Constitution, if that matters to anyone). It requires a massive growth in government power and intrusiveness. Today. Now. Not in some speculative future.
My solution remains the same: Stop driving those you fear into the arms of your enemy.
Of course, this anti-"immigration"/pro-gun hysteria is predicated on the political delusion that some Republican politicians are "pro-gun", and that is simply not even slightly true. I repeat: There is no such thing as a "pro-gun Republican". The average Republican politician (or bureaucrat) may be slightly less anti-gun than the average Democrat politician, but they aren't "pro-gun" at all. I have yet to see a single Republican politician who knows that weaponry of any kind is none of the government's business whatsoever-- not subject to any "laws" of any kind. Republicans are statists first. Anything else comes a distant second. You can't be a statist and really respect rights. Statists can pretend to respect rights, and they can say things that seem to indicate they do, but they lie. The proof is in what they do, not what they say.
And, the assumptions in the "challenge" may not even be realistic, anyway, although the writer of that piece may have an ulterior motive to make you believe him so you'll let down your guard and stop putting my solution into practice.
This blog post is not going to change anyone's mind, of course. In fact, I expect borderists to dig in their heels even more if they happen to read this. I realize I'm a nobody. My opinion isn't worth a hill of beans. But bad arguments for bigger, more powerful and intrusive government really bother me, especially when constructed poorly or deceptively. Doubly so when advocated by those who should be on the side of liberty.
-
*This isn't to say I don't like his blog. It has some very good information, but he's just got this gigantic mote in his eye that is causing him to stumble and side with the real enemy of gun rights on this issue. And it seems to be growing larger and more obsessive by the day.
I even understand his concerns. It bothers be too. I hate the fact that people are foolish enough to allow a "system" to exist which enables people to v*te to violate the rights of others-- which brings this "challenge" back to its own foundation: The State is YOUR enemy, even if it is doing things you approve of. Supporting it in any way is suicidal in the long run.
This is why my solution is so critical, and why advocating anything else would be shooting myself in the foot.
UPDATE: I see he's still pushing his "challenge", claiming no one has been able to answer it. I guess that's true if you ignore the answers you don't like.
Friday, September 15, 2017
Zero Archation Principle
With regard to the Theory of Relativity, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity came first. It worked OK, but there was something missing that kept it from working "generally". So, in time, Einstein came up with the General Theory of Relativity which applied much more generally, since it included acceleration, which is a common variable in the real world.
In the same way, there is the Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." It works great, where aggression is involved.
But aggression isn't the only thing you don't have a right to commit. I have always said the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient.
Some people tried to get around this inconvenient observation by defining other acts as "aggression", but it was always an awkward fit.
Part of the problem was that there simply wasn't a word which covered all those acts which no one has a right to commit.
So I created one: archation.
Now, rather than only having a Special
The Zero Archation Principle.
"No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to archate, nor to advocate or delegate archation."
This new, general ZAP is shorter and more comprehensive than the "special" ZAP that laid the groundwork. Sure, you'll have to define "archation", but admit it-- you've always had to define "aggression" anyway.
I'm not ditching the Zero Aggression Principle. It still works for so many cases, and is at least somewhat familiar to those fellow travelers who read. But in my own head, I have already switched over to the new ZAP- the Zero Archation Principle. Feel free to join me if you want.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Social entropy
I am a seeker. I just want to see the truth. Whatever it is. Wherever it leads.
And the truth I have discovered includes this:
Any society based on anything other than zero archation will degrade over time.
It will continue to get worse and worse.
Each cheat-- every act of archation-- will chip away a bit of trust.
It will make the next social interaction a little more difficult.
It will make it easier to justify the next cheat.
The evidence is all around you.
Just observe and you'll see it.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Thanks, Equifax... you bungling liars!
There's a bright side (to me) to the Equifax bungling and lying caper.
Maybe if enough "socialist insecurity" numbers get stolen and used all over the place in fraudulent (more fraudulent) ways, it will discredit the use of those numbers. (I mean, to the "mainstream" slaves.)
I'm ambivalent about the truthfulness of "credit scores", but I have no such ambivalence about that nasty numbering, tracking, and human inventory scheme that is the SSN. I want it to die. Anything that damages its "legitimacy" in the eyes of it's marginal supporters seems like a good thing to me.
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Nationalism, globalism, slavery, death
Isn't it strange that nationalists consider the desire to see everyone free of political bullies to be "globalism"?
I guess it shows where their alliances lie: Against liberty and humanity.
I'm against archators, whether they are freelance or "authorized", local or foreign, "nice" or cruel. Your favorite archators are just as bad as those you hate. I'll never embrace the archators you want to impose on me, no matter where they are based-- if they have a base.
Monday, September 11, 2017
Arbitrary rules are harmful
The world is choked with rules. Some rules are a good idea; most are utter nonsense.
Some are so arbitrary that it is hard to imagine how they were ever dreamed up in the first place. Sick minds need to stay busy, I suppose.
I despise arbitrary rules.
Arbitrary rules are always harmful, on some level.
Even the ones you agree with.
If nothing else, they cheapen all the rules-- including those which aren't arbitrary at all.
Once you run into enough arbitrary rules, and other harmful rules, you get to the point where a rule like "Do not push button" loses impact. You may push the button just to see what happens.
And then those who pollute the world with arbitrary rules will be shocked that you didn't listen to this sensible rule hidden among the jungle of harmful arbitrary rules.
Stay in the habit of evaluating each and every rule you encounter. Follow or reject them based on reality, not on whether someone decided to make them up and impose them on others.
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Accidents don't deserve punishment
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 9, 2017)
When an innocent person falls victim to a tragic accident, I hurt along with everyone else. Yet I part ways with most others when they start calling for the blood of the person who caused the accident. Or the modern version of calling for blood-- punishment imposed by the government's laws and justice system.
This isn't justice.
Accidents are never crimes. It doesn't matter how much harm was done. It doesn't matter how they make you feel. Accidents lack a key component of a real crime. A crime requires an intent to violate an individual. Concepts such as "negligence" confuse the issue and try to legitimize the hunger to punish, but the reality remains. Without intent to harm there is no crime, no matter what man's made up laws say.
Even if some sort of arbitration is necessary, which may be the case, government shouldn't be involved. Government is not a party to the matter, and is most certainly not the injured individual. Nor is society. Involving government doesn't solve the problem nor wipe the slate clean. Neither does punishing the person responsible.
Does this mean there are no consequences? That someone will "get away with it"? Not at all. There is still loss of reputation and trust.
Plus, if you cause harm, intentional or not, you owe restitution to the person you harmed-- or to their survivors. Some harm you can never pay off. The injured person can forgive your debt, but they aren't obligated to.
I understand the desire to make someone suffer when they have caused you pain. Believe me, I've been there. I also understand the wish to call suffering inflicted in retribution "justice", but it isn't.
Causing pain in order to punish an accident is wrong. It's wrong for you to poke out an eye for an eye blinded in an accident, and hiring someone-- such as a prosecutor-- to do it on your behalf can't magically make it right.
Maybe people grasp these straws because they can think of no other way to feel better when a tragic accident occurs. Does it really help?
I know my words mean nothing to those who are hurting, but I would ask them to consider the harm it does to their soul when they lust for legal revenge against someone who made a horrible mistake. Remember, the shoe could as easily be on the other foot, because even if you lie to yourself saying otherwise, anyone can make mistakes.
(Yes, I've said the same before, but that time it didn't get published in the paper.)
When an innocent person falls victim to a tragic accident, I hurt along with everyone else. Yet I part ways with most others when they start calling for the blood of the person who caused the accident. Or the modern version of calling for blood-- punishment imposed by the government's laws and justice system.
This isn't justice.
Accidents are never crimes. It doesn't matter how much harm was done. It doesn't matter how they make you feel. Accidents lack a key component of a real crime. A crime requires an intent to violate an individual. Concepts such as "negligence" confuse the issue and try to legitimize the hunger to punish, but the reality remains. Without intent to harm there is no crime, no matter what man's made up laws say.
Even if some sort of arbitration is necessary, which may be the case, government shouldn't be involved. Government is not a party to the matter, and is most certainly not the injured individual. Nor is society. Involving government doesn't solve the problem nor wipe the slate clean. Neither does punishing the person responsible.
Does this mean there are no consequences? That someone will "get away with it"? Not at all. There is still loss of reputation and trust.
Plus, if you cause harm, intentional or not, you owe restitution to the person you harmed-- or to their survivors. Some harm you can never pay off. The injured person can forgive your debt, but they aren't obligated to.
I understand the desire to make someone suffer when they have caused you pain. Believe me, I've been there. I also understand the wish to call suffering inflicted in retribution "justice", but it isn't.
Causing pain in order to punish an accident is wrong. It's wrong for you to poke out an eye for an eye blinded in an accident, and hiring someone-- such as a prosecutor-- to do it on your behalf can't magically make it right.
Maybe people grasp these straws because they can think of no other way to feel better when a tragic accident occurs. Does it really help?
I know my words mean nothing to those who are hurting, but I would ask them to consider the harm it does to their soul when they lust for legal revenge against someone who made a horrible mistake. Remember, the shoe could as easily be on the other foot, because even if you lie to yourself saying otherwise, anyone can make mistakes.
-
(Yes, I've said the same before, but that time it didn't get published in the paper.)
You can't have it both ways, Constitutionalists
Who is the enemy of Rightful Liberty?
It is the one who violates it, or advocates violating it. It is the one who asks others to violate it on his behalf.
Period.
No one else can be the enemy of Rightful Liberty.
So, who is violating Rightful Liberty?
Who advocates violating Rightful Liberty?
Who asks others to violate Rightful Liberty on his behalf?
Archators-- specifically including anyone who advocates governing others-- do. That's who.
It doesn't matter if they try to govern others with socialism, communism, republicanism, democracy, theocracy, or some other version of statism. Governing others is always a violation of Rightful Liberty.
This means those who use the US Constitution as some sort of touchstone are mortal enemies of Rightful Liberty. The Constitution established a government. A State. As such it continues to violate Rightful Liberty with everything it permits or fails to prevent, even to this day. And Constitutionalists encourage it to do so. Even harder, if it suits them.
They'll deny it venomously. They'll try to place the blame elsewhere. On you. Somehow they'll blame you for not "enforcing Constitutional limits" on the State a hundred years or more before you were born. They'll blame you for not demanding employees of the State stay inside those limits (or at least the limits they like) now-- and will tell you v*ting is the way to accomplish it. They'll claim it's the way to scare them into behaving. Never mind that it has never worked. Yes, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad and dangerous.
They'll promise to defend Rightful Liberty to the death-- your death-- while utterly destroying Rightful Liberty with everything they advocate, delegate, and do.
They'll even advocate things, using the Constitution as a justification, that the Constitution didn't ever allow. Such as "immigration" control. Ask about that and they'll point to the part about "naturalization"; ignoring that it set out how to make someone a "citizen", not how to allow them to be here. This shows they support something they don't even understand, and make it up when it suits their feelings.
And they'll feel pleased with themselves, and feel superior.
They are not necessarily the greatest threat to Rightful Liberty right now. Their numbers are too small. Others may be worse and are more numerous. But if you mistakenly believe they understand and support liberty, and see you as an ally, you are making a fatal error.
Just heed the warning.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are perhaps better. They are dead wrong. No matter the excuses they use.
Saturday, September 09, 2017
Detours to the "Left"
A while back I wrote about the fellow travelers who have forsaken Rightful Liberty to move to the political "Right" (although they'll deny that's what they've done).
But, there are also those who have moved to the "Left" and abandoned liberty.
I suspect those made their move away from liberty as a reaction to the "Right"-- I can't imagine they just decided to reject liberty out of thin air.
Maybe the toxicity of the "Right" rhetoric repelled them so thoroughly that they bounced directly into a belief system exactly as repugnant. They took on the "social justice" causes, no matter how anti-liberty they are, just because they weren't the causes of the "Right".
Sometimes the Left is right on an issue, just as the Right is sometimes right. Both are wrong on most things, and agree with each other far more than they disagree-- this is why statism is the world's most popular religion. If the Right or the Left were usually correct, there wouldn't be much for me to disagree with them over. That's not the world which exists.
Friday, September 08, 2017
Disagreeable me
I am not disagreeable. Really.
I don't go out of my way to find things to disagree with. I even try to avoid situations where people will be parroting things I'll disagree with. I want to get along with people, even if I'm not good at "going along to get along".
But, if-- in spite of my efforts-- I hear or see someone advocating rape or mass murder, should I spare their delicate little feelings by remaining silent?
What if they don't believe they are advocating such horrors? Should I avoid pointing out that is exactly what they are advocating by supporting government or cops?
I don't like disagreeing with people, but it's better than agreeing with them when they are being horrible. In that case, I wouldn't respect myself. So, if I seem disagreeable, it might be a good time to look in the mirror and notice what you are advocating. It might be that you are supporting disagreeable things which good people must disagree with.
Thursday, September 07, 2017
Who's angry?
I'm not generally an angry person (although sometimes I get angry at certain events or people), but I think it's completely reasonable for anarchists to be angry.
Why would an anarchist be angry?
Might it be due to injustice? Theft? Might it be that these vile things are accepted as normal, or even desirable, by the vast majority of people?
Might it be because he is a good person who sees immense evil being called "good" or "necessary"?
Why would anger under these conditions be unexpected?
Anger doesn't justify taking it out on innocent people, though. And that recognition is what makes us better people than the rabble who do.
Tuesday, September 05, 2017
Here's that &#@% hump again
$173.
That's how much I need to get over the financial hump that has been building. If you would like to help, I would appreciate it.
If you'd like to subscribe in any of the various ways which are available over to the right, which would help eliminate the cause of that building financial hump, I would be thrilled.
Also, a separate issue is that I'm still trying to help get together enough money to get someone else's broken and recurringly infected tooth fixed. Still need around $200* for that- if you contribute to my Go Fund Me campaign, that money will only go toward the dentist, and not toward the $173, because as much as I need the other, the tooth is more pressing.
If you aren't able to help, or don't want to, that's OK. But I have to ask. Sorry.
*Insurance covers all but $400, I have collected $183 (after the Go Fund Me fees) toward the dental charges. The dentist won't even consider fixing the tooth first and working out a payment plan for the balance- that has been asked repeatedly. The alternative is going to another dentist... who doesn't take the insurance- which only means more money will be needed.)
That's how much I need to get over the financial hump that has been building. If you would like to help, I would appreciate it.
If you'd like to subscribe in any of the various ways which are available over to the right, which would help eliminate the cause of that building financial hump, I would be thrilled.
Also, a separate issue is that I'm still trying to help get together enough money to get someone else's broken and recurringly infected tooth fixed. Still need around $200* for that- if you contribute to my Go Fund Me campaign, that money will only go toward the dentist, and not toward the $173, because as much as I need the other, the tooth is more pressing.
If you aren't able to help, or don't want to, that's OK. But I have to ask. Sorry.
*Insurance covers all but $400, I have collected $183 (after the Go Fund Me fees) toward the dental charges. The dentist won't even consider fixing the tooth first and working out a payment plan for the balance- that has been asked repeatedly. The alternative is going to another dentist... who doesn't take the insurance- which only means more money will be needed.)
Do the hard thing
Standing up against wrong is hard.
Doing right can be hard.
It is scary.
It can be dangerous.
It will have consequences.
It could kill you.
It is still right.
It is your responsibility.
Monday, September 04, 2017
Change happens one person at a time
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 2, 2017- I forgot to post it in full yesterday. Sorry!)
The world has plenty of problems and something needs to change. Just about everyone agrees on this point, even if the details they'd like to change differ. Everyone probably believes they have some of the solutions, too.
Assuming the change you want is actually good, and your solution would work, how do you put it in motion? How do you make sure you don't make things worse if the change you want, or your path to get there, turns out to be disastrous?
How about not trying to beat other people into going along with you? Instead, change yourself according to what you'd like to see the world become. Some say "Be the change you wish to see in the world". It sounds simplistic and "touchy-feely", but how else can you really change the world other than by taking the risk yourself? All change happens one person at a time.
If you have a better way to live, live it. Don't force it on others; lead by example. Then, let people watch what happens to you. They'll join you voluntarily if your way seems to work. If it fails, admit it and try something different.
It comes down to "you go first". If your idea is a good one-- or if you truly believe it is-- you shouldn't fear putting it into action in your life. If you won't give it an honest shot, how can you expect anyone else to?
For instance, I believe no one has the right to use violence against people who are neither using violence nor violating someone's property rights. So I don't do it. I believe the best way to live among other people is to respect their right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm the person or property of anyone else. This is how I try to live.
This doesn't mean I ignore any terrible acts I see committed, or that I reject self defense. It means I won't act in ways I believe are wrong in pursuit of the world I want.
If you reject this way, preferring a way you believe is better, live it and see how it works.
The conventional routine of forcing everyone to go along with your bright scheme is ancient, but even when it seems to work, it doesn't result in anything good. It ends up leading to more of the same. The world can't afford to stay on this path.
The world has plenty of problems and something needs to change. Just about everyone agrees on this point, even if the details they'd like to change differ. Everyone probably believes they have some of the solutions, too.
Assuming the change you want is actually good, and your solution would work, how do you put it in motion? How do you make sure you don't make things worse if the change you want, or your path to get there, turns out to be disastrous?
How about not trying to beat other people into going along with you? Instead, change yourself according to what you'd like to see the world become. Some say "Be the change you wish to see in the world". It sounds simplistic and "touchy-feely", but how else can you really change the world other than by taking the risk yourself? All change happens one person at a time.
If you have a better way to live, live it. Don't force it on others; lead by example. Then, let people watch what happens to you. They'll join you voluntarily if your way seems to work. If it fails, admit it and try something different.
It comes down to "you go first". If your idea is a good one-- or if you truly believe it is-- you shouldn't fear putting it into action in your life. If you won't give it an honest shot, how can you expect anyone else to?
For instance, I believe no one has the right to use violence against people who are neither using violence nor violating someone's property rights. So I don't do it. I believe the best way to live among other people is to respect their right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm the person or property of anyone else. This is how I try to live.
This doesn't mean I ignore any terrible acts I see committed, or that I reject self defense. It means I won't act in ways I believe are wrong in pursuit of the world I want.
If you reject this way, preferring a way you believe is better, live it and see how it works.
The conventional routine of forcing everyone to go along with your bright scheme is ancient, but even when it seems to work, it doesn't result in anything good. It ends up leading to more of the same. The world can't afford to stay on this path.
A lack of imagination
I got a bit of hatred for my newspaper column "Accidents don't deserve punishment". And a little for the follow-up video I made, too.
People LOVE punishment. And they lust for it. And they simply can't imagine finding themselves in the position of being on the other end.
Unfortunately, I can imagine it.
I'm aware of times I did something really stupid in moments of distraction. Moments which could have ended in disaster for someone (usually including me). But I lucked out.
Sometimes people aren't so lucky.
This is why I have some sympathy for people who cause accidents. I know it could easily be me. Or anyone. No one is so special they are immune.
Saturday, September 02, 2017
New videos
If you are interested in my videos, please subscribe to my YouTube channel, my Vid.me channel, or my videos on DTube.
My videos are not professional quality, because I'm not professional. But they are what they are. Maybe you'd get some value from them.
I may or may not post the links to videos on the blog, so subscribing to one of the various channels is your best bet for seeing them in a timely manner.
What kind of right is it?
It doesn't matter to me if a right is a "First Amendment Right" or a "Second Amendment Right" or any other right supposedly "protected" by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was a scam, and it's been irrelevant for all intents and purposes for a very long time.
What matters to me is whether something is a human right.
And you have the right, as a human, to do absolutely anything which doesn't violate someone else's equal and identical rights. Anything. Which is why entitlements can't be rights.
Whether or not it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights is irrelevant.
Whether governments respect your right is irrelevant as to whether or not it exists-- although it matters a great deal as to whether you are free to exercise your right without dying by cop.
So, worrying about which amendment "protects" a particular right is pointless. Let the statists chase their tails with that one.
If you do what you want, would it violate anyone's life, liberty, or property?
If not, go ahead- it's your right.
If it does, you'd be smart (and ethical) to not do it no matter how badly you want to, and no matter how you justify it.
Remember, though, it's not always smart, or even nice, to do everything you have a right to do, at any particular time or place. Be ethical, but also be smart and nice.
Friday, September 01, 2017
I know, let's all be equal!
Socialism doesn't lift every one up equally; what it does is it attempts to shove everyone down equally.
But it even fails at that.
There are always some elites doing the pushing who will lift themselves up at the expense of everyone they are pushing down. Socialism still results in a "1%" who own the vast majority of everything, while the majority of the people have almost nothing.
Much worse, in practice, than the economic "systems" socialists love to hate.
The only equality in the world is that everyone-- and I mean every single individual everywhere on the planet (in the future, off-world, too)-- has the exact same rights as every other individual. No difference at all.
That's it. That's the equality you get. Beyond that, nothing is "fair".
You may work really hard, and live right, and get totally screwed over. It happens. It's nice when other people try to make you believe the world is "fair" by helping you overcome problems, but that's what people can do for each other; it's not what the Universe does.
And it's not what socialism brings.