Liberty Lines- Sept. 8, 2016

(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)

Drug abuse is dumb. I understand why people want programs and strategies they believe would lower the risk of someone abusing drugs. However, very often the things they grasp at are counterproductive and actually increase the risk. They are feel-good, knee-jerk reactions based on ideology, not grounded in reality.

Study after study indicates that one of the biggest risk factors involved in drug abuse and addiction is a lack of quality social connections.

One of the primary justifications for the athletic programs in government schools is that it creates camaraderie between the kids; the very type of social connection which would decrease the likelihood of drug abuse becoming a problem. If this is the case, shouldn't you be encouraging at-risk kids to get involved, rather than erecting barriers which will scare them away before they even give it a try? Programs which will end up causing greater isolation?

I understand when people pursue a chosen path in order to stay true to their ideology, but when that ideology is standing firm against science, reason, ethics, and morality they should reconsider their stance.

When a mistake has been made, publicly, it takes a big person to admit it and change course, rather than batten down the hatches and proceed onto the reef as stubborn people generally do. Correcting a mistake is the right thing to do. It takes bravery. It may cause embarrassment. But it needs to be done. Now.

The Farwell Independent Schools' "random drug testing program" is just such a mistake, and needs to be abandoned before it creates more of what the school administration and community say they want to prevent. If the school goes through with it anyway, you will then know where they stand, and why.

(Steemit link)

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

Seeking a sponsor for a project

I haven't been writing Liberty Lines columns for the local weekly paper (The State Line Tribune) for several months now. Someone asked about that a couple of days ago and it got me to thinking.

That's the only writing I don't get paid anything for, so it's the first to get pushed aside.

But... considering I have gotten quite a bit of face-to-face feedback on that column over the years, and all positive, I was thinking about seeking a sponsor here at the blog. To motivate me to spend the time and effort on writing more of them.

It is harder to get my columns published in that paper. The publisher rails against certain things government does (or doesn't do), but he has an unshakable faith that government is the answer- just not government "as is". He pretty much worships politicians, cops, the military, etc. as concepts, even while criticizing the individuals in those positions if they aren't doing what he wants. But he really doesn't like for me to criticize them at all- especially not local individuals in those positions. He always calls Muslims "Moslems" and wants the government to save the middle class and "do more" for everyone. So, you can imagine it is hard to sneak a column in that doesn't shock and offend him in some way. He has refused to publish a few of my submissions for this reason- that I questioned the legitimacy of government or some government position or action. But, I am willing to put forth the effort again.

So, if you would like to sponsor Liberty Lines columns- I am allowed to submit one per month- subscribe by any of the methods listed in the right-hand column here, for $20 per month, and tell me it is for Liberty Lines.

I won't mention your sponsorship in the newspaper, but if you'd like I could put a "Sponsored by" here at the blog when I post them.

It is just a thought. If it is worth it, someone will sponsor it. If not, then no harm done.

.

Liberty Lines, August 27, 2015

(Published in the Farwell, TX/ Texico, NM State Line Tribune. Remember that my Liberty Lines columns are written for a conservative Christian statist audience. I try to temper my words without compromising principles. It's a tightrope, and I hope I do it well enough.)

The only thing more stupid than drug abuse is a war on drugs. Is drug abuse a problem? Of course it is. But the never-ending War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is even worse. In fact, the majority of the supposed ill-effects of drug use have nothing to do with the drugs themselves and everything to do with enforcement of the prohibition. In a "Drug War" the drugs will always win; in large part, directly due to the effects of prohibition.

It was foolish to ever believe that turning a vice into a crime would make it go away. It is even more foolish to continue to keep it a crime after more than a century of failure. Drugs used to be legal; they should be made legal once again.

Portugal ended prohibition back in 2001. Did it suddenly make drug abuse in Portugal skyrocket? Of course not. In fact, drug use is down, especially among 15- to 24-year olds- the age group most likely to begin using drugs. And it keeps dropping.

Would you start using heroin if it were legal? I wouldn't- unless my doctor and I decided between ourselves that it was the most effective pain relief for a horrible condition. And truthfully, no "law" could stop me in that case anyway.

The myth of Cannabis ("marijuana") as a gateway drug is just that: a pathetic, dishonest myth. People who are willing to take the risk of being kidnapped or robbed ("arrested" or "fined") for using Cannabis are naturally going to be less risk-averse than those who are scared to get caught. This kind of person is more likely to try even more risky things. This is an example of correlation, not causation- confusing the two is one of the main logical errors which result in people believing wrong things and pursuing bad paths.

The myth that everyone who tries the scary drug of the week suddenly becomes a helpless addict is just as pitiful. Statistics show that 10.3 million people have tried methamphetamine at least once, yet only 1.3 million used meth in the last year. If the helpless addict myth were true, the number of people who would be either currently using meth, or dead from using it, would reflect this number. It's not even close.

A certain percentage of people will be addicted to something no matter how harshly you punish them. (Many are addicted to trying to control others through "laws" and ordinances.) Since studies show that people without meaningful social connections are much more likely to become addicts, the better solution to addiction is not to isolate them further by committing enforcement against them, but to give them the connections they really need.

And if they violate person or property while under the influence, or in order to buy the prohibition-inflated substances they seek, shoot them in self defense. Either way the problem is solved.

.

Liberty Lines, May 7, 2015

(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)

If government were necessary- it isn't, but I'll humor you- its one and only possible justification is to protect the rights of the individual. Only individuals have rights; not "society" or any other collective. There is no such thing as "the common good"- this is just a flimsy excuse to harm individuals, which always harms society as a whole since society is made of nothing but individuals.

All rights are, at their foundation, property rights- concerning either your body, or the products of your body and life. When government employees start violating rights (with permits, licenses, prohibitions, and enforcement of "laws" against anything other than theft or aggression) instead of protecting these rights, they are behaving counter to their job's only possible justification and that job needs to be abolished.

A government which violates individual rights invalidates itself.

A large part of the problem is that very few people today understand what rights actually are. All real rights are "negative rights"- things you have a right to not have someone else do to you or your property.

"Positive rights"- things others are required to do for you- are the imaginary product of socialism.
"I have a right to housing, so you can be forced to provide it for me".
"I have a right to an education, so I'll vote to tax you in order to pay for it."
"I have a right to enjoy my property, so you have to get approval to use yours."

The right to use your property as you see fit, within your property lines, without asking permission from anyone, is inalienable. The imaginary right to control what others do with their property, for "the common good", is the perversion which has been normalized through the belief in the existence of human "authority"- which is a dangerous superstition.

Almost all law enforcement now done is nothing but violating Natural Rights and Rightful Liberty- while collecting money to finance even more of the same. As soon as a government starts violating individual rights, including property rights, in any way, it becomes the problem rather than a solution. When it becomes a way to collect fees or fines for the "privilege" of exercising your inalienable rights to your property and the fruits of your labors it becomes a protection racket, not a protector. Don't support or defend this abomination, or the individuals who enable it.

.

Liberty Lines 4-2-2015

(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)

[Background- recently the local police chief, apparently under direction of the mayor, has been focusing on "building permits". A woman had a carport installed in front of her house without a "permit" and the cop showed up as it was being completed and threw his weight around. The carport was found to be a half inch "too close" (according to the "legal" distance of 15') to the curb. The builders moved the carport right up against the house and cut it a little shorter to comply. Now the "authorities" whine it is "too close" to her house. The city council is having a meeting to determine whether she will be forced to take it down. Then she built a fence. The mayor stopped by and threw a hissy fit. This time she had the "permit", even though the mayor said he hadn't seen her name on one- it was in the contractor's name.)

I am so glad I don't suffer from the lust to control other people's property. Judging by the people who find this an important "responsibility", it must be quite a burden.

It doesn't hurt me in any way if my neighbor puts a carport in front of their house, and in fact I am happy for them if they do, knowing it will improve their life.

That doesn't mean I would remain silent if they tried to build on my property, or violated my property in some other way, but I know my property ends at my property lines, and things that happen, and stay, on the other side of the line are not my business. "Law" or no "law".

I oppose silly and destructive laws requiring "permits" (more honestly called bribes) for remodeling your house or adding a deck.

As unpopular as it may be, I stand with those who exercise their American right- actually, their fundamental human right- to use their own property as they see fit without asking permission from anyone, as long as they don't harm the private property of anyone else.

Any law that seeks to violate private property is a counterfeit "law"; it is wrong and shouldn't be passed, and if it somehow gets passed anyway, it shouldn't be enforced. Ever. Those laws should be eliminated, and ignored until they are.

Of course, that would eliminate almost every law currently financing the growing US police state, so those who profit from it would never take such a radical notion- to respect private property- lying down.

A common objection is "property values", but think about that for a minute. The biggest consequence of "property values" is how much the local government will decide to ransom your property for each and every year. Lower property value means you get robbed a little less, and I see that as a good thing. But how can you really know a modification to your neighbor's property will lower your property's market value? Regardless of the opinion of those who make up the rules, people's tastes vary. Many people might value your house even more with the neighbor's modification next door.

I would rather live where people are happy and free to do with their property as they wish, without being molested by anyone, than in some postcard illustration of an imaginary "perfect neighborhood".
-

Update: Here is a letter to the editor in response to this column: link

.

Liberty Lines follow-up

Thinking about possible reactions and objections to my Liberty Lines column, which I wasn't able to address in the paper due to space limitations:

Maybe "convert or die" is a winning strategy. People could say that history shows the "convert or die" methods of the New World's newcomers was  pretty effective. The indigenous peoples did "convert or die"- and a lot died even after converting.

Perhaps Muslims could also defeat the rest of the world in the same way.

Indigenous Americans lost due to the invaders' superior weapons and because of imported disease. Both a result, in large part, of a lack of science in the New World culture.

Muslims attacking America is like what would have happened if indigenous Americans had tried to raid Spain. The results would have probably been much the same as happened.

Remember, Islam claims earthquakes are due to female immodesty. Not a culture with a firm grasp on how things actually are. Yes, there was a time long ago when Islam was the scientific leader of the world; when Muslims invented algebra and were the advocates of science.

That time is not now.

Imported diseases aren't going to be much of a threat- not an extinction-level threat by any means. We have modern medicine and understand basic hygiene. They don't have superior weapons or technology. All they have going for them is religious fervor and a willingness to kill and die. Yes, that can be very dangerous to individuals who get in the way, but not to the "culture" as a whole. Unless you would just roll over and submit. I won't do that, will you? I didn't think so.

Maybe you'd better get in the habit of refusing to submit to aggressive extremists now. For practice.

.

Liberty Lines Feb 5, 2015

(Published in the Farwell TX/Texico NM, State Line Tribune- Feb. 5, 2015)

I have some good news that you may not like hearing: Islam won't take over the world. Its fanatical adherents would like to; they just can't. Not without some civilization-ending catastrophe to pave the way- such as a major asteroid strike, a plague wiping out most of humanity, or some other "science fiction" scenario. Sure, those things could happen, but they're not likely, and not something you can control, so you shouldn't obsess over it. Besides, at that point Islam would be the least of your worries.

Still, it is completely self-defeating to support policies which empower the fundamentalist Muslims- such as the modern secular Crusade led by the US government. This does nothing but recruit more to their cause, and give them more reasons to emigrate from the war-torn region.

It's like kicking a hornet nest and being surprised at the results. But these are humans we are talking about. You can't annihilate the entire nest without killing more innocent people than guilty ones. That would be just as evil as what the aggressive Muslim fundamentalists are doing.

If it weren't for the US government constantly going to the Middle East (with money stolen from you, to the cheers of fans of never-ending war) and repeatedly poking Islam with a sharp stick- giving it energy, motivation, and justification with each poke- Islam wouldn't be spreading so much and wouldn't be an issue outside that one part of the globe.

I realize Islam has a nasty "convert or die" outlook. This is the Islamic year 1436; their 15th Century. You wouldn't happen to remember what was happening in the New World beginning in the Christian 15th Century and beyond, would you? Does the word "Conquistador" ring any bells? How about Pizarro? "Manifest Destiny"?

"Convert or die" is always wrong, always barbaric, but it isn't exclusively Muslim.

The only real danger is the danger which always lies in politics. Until people get over the sick idea that it's OK to govern others, and that a majority can vote their will on a minority "for their own good", there is always a risk that someone will outvote you and impose their silly or destructive rules to govern you in a way which violates your Rightful Liberty, and which you object to. Nothing can make that right. It's long past time to stop repeating this destructive pattern.

(Also, check out the next post for a little follow-up I didn't have room to put in the paper.)

.

I'm such a slacker

I guess I should sent the State Line Tribune another Liberty Lines soon. Shame on me for slacking.

.

Liberty Lines, August 7, 2014

(Published in the Farwell TX / Texico NM "State Line Tribune". Wow... the version printed by the newspaper is filled with typos and errors that were not in my original. Because I came back and looked to make sure I hadn't made those mistakes. Sigh...)

What is authority? I think most people are very confused about that.

Let's say you have a vault which contains gold coins. The contents of that safe are yours, free and clear, and if you choose to do so, you can give me some of it. It is within your authority to do so.

If you have a butler whom you have authorized to hand out coins on your behalf, he also has the authority to give me some.

Thank you!

However, if the coins aren't yours to give away, but belong to someone else, or if you haven't given your butler permission to hand out your coins, giving them to me wouldn't be right. It is not within your authority, nor your butler's, to give them away. Doing so would be theft.

You also can't give the butler the authority to break into your neighbor's house and give away the neighbor's coins, because that authority is not yours to give. You would be wrong to pretend you could delegate that authority to anyone.

Similarly, you can't give any government employee authority you, personally, don't possess.

You can delegate the authority to catch a murderer, attacker, or a thief because you, personally, have that authority. No one had to give it to you; you were born with it. Those things are within your authority to deal with.

On the other hand, you don't have authority to forbid people from doing anything they want which doesn't directly cause physical harm- not just the potential for possible harm- against the innocent or violate private property rights, and therefore you can't delegate that nonexistent "authority" to anyone on your behalf. You would be attempting to give away something imaginary which therefore can't be yours to give. No matter how badly you want to, how you try to justify it, or how many of your neighbors agree with you. Acting as though you can do it anyway just makes you and your employee the bad guys.

Because you, as an individual, regardless of any delusions of grandeur, do not have the authority to tell others what to do with their own property, including their own lives, you can't delegate that authority. Not even by inventing governments or making up "laws". If you forge ahead, or send others to carry out your wishes on your behalf, you are a thief or an attacker.

.

.

Liberty Lines, July 3, 2014

(Published in The State Line Tribune, Farwell, TX/Texico, NM)

I can't believe the arrogance of those who decide to give themselves more power over the lives of people they previously had no "authority" over.

Some people choose to live beyond city limits in order to enjoy a little extra freedom from the intrusive and meddlesome rules that towns are known to make up out of thin air (usually "justified" by "health and safety") and enforce.

Extending a town's jurisdiction in this way is a betrayal, no matter what "state law" may allow. It's really no different than Canada suddenly deciding to control what people in Montana can do on their own property. Sure, governments jealously guard their own tax cows, and Montanans are already claimed, and well milked, by several different levels of government, but people choose to not live under more government than they want for a reason. This status quo is like a truce- live and let live. This proposed expansion of "jurisdiction" is a violation of that implicit truce.

Take a hard look at those pushing for this expansion of government intrusion. Never believe them if they claim to be for "limited government" while seeking to expand government control in such a large way. You now know exactly what they are and how they see you.

Does this mean the Farwell police department is admitting there isn't enough actual, real trouble in Farwell proper to keep them busy, so they feel a need to extend their territory? If so, cut back on employees, put the remainder on part time, and refund the savings to the residents. I can "police" myself- as can almost every other person in town. And together, without any "official help", we can keep the actual aggressors and property violators in line- apparently unless they hold political office or draw their pay from the tax loot.

_

Mike Pomper- In last week's Border Banter you wrote "us homies cannot do a blasted thing about" all the new federal regulations which will be imposed on us in the near future. Sure we can! We choose whether to obey or not. I realize you may not want to be an outlaw, but you had better get over it. Soon, all the decent people will be outlaws. Maybe "soon" is already here.

In "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand wrote "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." That time is upon us. It's interesting how applicable that quote is to the first part of my column as well.

.

Fear and Ignorance

Those are the only two "tactics" I have ever seen whipped out as a defense against liberty.

And, boy, did my most recent Liberty Lines column bring both fear and ignorance out of people!

I will reply to this letter to the editor from poor Brandon (whoever he is...), but I haven't decided yet whether to do it in next month's Liberty Lines, or to just do it here on the blog. (added: here's my response) Either way I wanted y'all to see what I'm up against locally.

So, here ya go (from the State Line Tribune- April 17, 2014):

(Click to enlargenize)

Liberty Lines- April 10, 2014

(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)

I wonder how many people thought America's morality was at its end when slavery lost its legal footing. Or when the "Jim Crow" laws which followed slavery were done away with. Probably about as many as now think getting rid of anti-marijuana "laws" spells doom to America's moral foundation.

If your "morality" requires you to violate someone else's individual human right to do absolutely anything that doesn't violate your identical and equal rights, your "morality" is empty. In fact, it is the opposite of moral.

The Prohibitionists of an earlier era realized that to make their campaign "legal" they had to pass a Constitutional amendment- because the Constitution didn't permit any authority to enforce any sort of prohibition. It still doesn't. The current anti-drug prohibition never got even this flimsy veil of legitimacy to hide behind. It was, and is, completely illegal at every level, and enforcing it makes a person a criminal.

That is the real moral problem.

Of course, when something is a violation of a person's rights, not even a Constitutional amendment can make it right. This is why Prohibition is always wrong and why a repeal of the Second Amendment can't eliminate the right to own and to carry weapons. Rights have never hinged on laws.

The worst thing about the new marijuana laws springing up across the country is that they establish a tax for doing something people have always had the right to do- "taxation" is a warm-fuzzy euphemism for theft, and taxes always go to finance new violations of life, liberty, and property.

If you don't believe people should use marijuana, then don't use it yourself, and feel free to ridicule or shun those who do. And if anyone harms an innocent person or private property, regardless of whether or not they are "impaired", seek restitution. Those responses to the situation are completely within your rights. Using the blunt force of The State to impose your wishes on others is not. In fact, it is an example of America's version of Sharia Law; universally imposed on True Believer and Infidel, alike.

By doing this to others you are testifying to your belief in the rightness of having someone else do the same to you, no matter who gains power or authority in the future. In that case, don't whine when you find yourself on the wrong end of a future law.

-

Check out my next post to see the sheriff's (probable) response.

.

Liberty Lines- March 6, 2014

The headline in the State Line Tribune says "Texas primary election on tap". Wow! I never thought of it that way before, but I can't argue with the accuracy.

That particular tap is better left alone. Like beer, elections can be addictive and are apparently very intoxicating. When it comes to voting, those deepest into the keg look down upon those who stay sober, sometimes to the point of virulent hatred.

Maybe a careful vote here and there won't really hurt anyone, but each vote makes it easier to do the next time. You forget to only vote against new State power, which can possibly be excused, and end up voting for this or that new "law" or puppetician. For many people, moderation is impossible.

You make excuses about why you drink... I mean, vote so much, saying you need to. It makes you feel better or gives you a sense of importance.

You quickly develop a taste for it, and before you know it you are lying in the gutter with Democrapublicans, incoherently mumbling about "next time".

The current situation, which is what people often say they are voting against, is a result of people voting for those people and "laws" which they believe will control their neighbors, and their enemies, the way they'd prefer. How has that worked out? With everyone subject to innumerable violations of their Rightful Liberty, in every area imaginable, each and every day. The only "winners" are those who do the controlling or profit from the inevitable enforcement and bureaucratic leviathan.

As is often pointed out, it is insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

Why not try something different? Mind your own life and stop trying to find people and "laws" to control others on your behalf. You'll be amazed at how empowering and liberating that can be.
.

Liberty Lines, January 16, 2014

(Published in the Farwell TX/Texico NM State Line Tribune)

The front page article about the Farwell man arrested on "drug, weapon charges" should bother anyone who cares about doing right.

I don't know the man or anything about him.  However, if you don't stand up for everyone, equally, when you see them violated, your complaints will be seen as hypocritical if you ever fall victim to the same.

Of all the charges he faces, only one has even the possibility of being an actual wrong.  I'll address that in a bit.

First let me examine the other charges: possession of marijuana.  Prohibition is always wrong and enforcing it always does more harm than the prohibited substances ever could.  To then criminalize "drug paraphernalia" is just heaping stupidity upon insanity.

"Possession of prohibited weapons" is another non-crime.  To admit you have, or enforce, a list of "prohibited weapons" is an admission that you are the one operating outside the law.  "Shall not be infringed" is not a suggestion, but a warning that any government employee who does infringe upon the right to keep and bear (that means to own and to carry, in case you didn't know) arms (which means any weapon of any sort, not just firearms) is committing a serious crime.

Then you have the twin charges of "evading arrest" and "resisting arrest".  If you have done nothing wrong, you have a right to try to prevent your arrest.  Laws used to reflect and support this basic right, but the growing police state finds this inconvenient and has recently added these fake "crimes" to it's enforcement tool kit in order to pad the charges filed.

Finally we come to the only possible wrong in that list of charges: assault.  The problem is, it isn't "assault" if you are fighting back against being kidnapped ("arrested") by those enforcing fake "laws"- in such a case you are defending yourself.  Assault is what you are defending against.

I also notice that the excuse given for trespassing on this man's liberty was a suspicion that he had stolen property, and that he wasn't charged with theft.  This makes me suspect the original excuse was known to be false from the start; a "fishing expedition" to find something to justify an arrest.

Sure, you can say enforcers have no say in the laws they enforce, but that's a cop-out.  Everyone always has the choice to do the right thing or to do the wrong thing.  Tyranny is always first made legal.  As a human being, you make the choice to either enforce tyranny, or to support liberty.  Make the right choice.

.

The truth is harsh and painful

Reality is harsh and uncompromising.  If you fall through the ice in the wilderness, and can't get a fire going, you will die.  How you feel about the situation, that it's "unfair" or whatnot, won't change reality.

The truth is also often harsh.  You have no right to initiate force or take what isn't yours no matter how much you want to justify it.

People don't like hearing harsh truths.  They want to be told they are OK.  They want to think they aren't the bad guy if they initiate force or take what isn't theirs- especially if they can point to a "law" that says it's OK or if they can send others to do it on their behalf.  Calling it "arrest" or "taxation" or even "confiscation" of "prohibited" substances or items doesn't change that you are committing evil- or supporting those who do.

I have sent a Liberty Lines column to the State Line Tribune for this coming Thursday that I expect will not be received well by people who don't want to hear the harsh truth that they are advocating evil.

It is in response to an article about a local man's arrest on "drug, weapons charges".  I don't know the guy; he may be a thoroughly nasty character, or he may not be.  The point is, from the article it seems to me he isn't being charged with doing anything wrong.

I expect there will be some flak, possibly from local law enforcement.  But the truth is the truth, no matter who it upsets.  The truth doesn't care if you believe it or not.  It simply is.

Stay tuned...

.

Liberty Lines, Nov. 21, 2013

Published in the Farwell TX/ Texico NM State Line Tribune

(This was in response to a column by the newspaper's owner- click on the picture to read it- which suggested that the presence of a Libertarian candidate ensured the victory of the Democrat in the VA governor's race.  I was asked to weigh in on the matter from a libertarian perspective.)

First of all, I am what you would call a "small 'l' libertarian" as opposed to a "Big 'L' Libertarian". It's the difference between being a philosophical libertarian and being a political libertarian (a member of the Libertarian Party). They can be the same, but often aren't.

The Libertarian Party is a political party supposedly based upon the principles of libertarianism- but they often fall short due to their desire to win elections- or to at least play the game. They soft peddle and avoid topics they think would hurt them, and because of that can't even get the support of many libertarians. I used to be a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, but dropped out because of the LP's refusal to stick to the principles.

When they lose an election, both Republicans and Democrats think Libertarians took votes from them. Both are probably correct to a degree, depending on the particular election, but I think in most cases the people who end up voting for the Libertarian candidate simply wouldn't have voted at all if there hadn't been a Libertarian on the ballot. There is a simple solution- become more libertarian rather than constantly whining that libertarians should vote for candidates they find repugnant.

Most Libertarians, and practically all libertarians, see no reason to prefer the Republican candidate over the Democrat, or vice versa. Most see them both as simply different branches of the same political party, rather than seeing the superficial differences they emphasize having any actual value at all. If you are being chased by a hungry tiger, why would you care what color the stripes on his tail are? Both Democrats and Republicans believe it's their "right" to control what you do with your own life and property, and will use deadly force to enforce compliance. The only difference is in which parts of your life and property they choose to interfere with. That's no choice.

One big part of libertarian (and principled Libertarian) thinking is that a vote for the lesser of two evils just keeps resulting in more evil. If the choice is between two people who shouldn't be holding office, then to vote for either one is endorsing someone you don't want under the belief that "you have to vote for someone". No, you don't. It's better to not participate than to throw your support behind someone you know is dangerous to individual liberty. If you vote you are implicitly agreeing to go along with the result even if "your side" loses. In other words, if you vote you have no right to complain about the results. Yes, I know the voters usually turn that upside down, but think about it: If you play chess by the rules, how can you complain if you lose? Especially if you keep agreeing to play chess with a known cheat, or with someone who keeps changing the rules mid-game to favor himself. In that case the only winning move is to refuse to be drawn in. Go play something else instead.

.

Liberty Lines 9-12-2013

(Published in The State Line Tribune, Farwell TX/Texico NM)

Until people stop looking for answers in all the wrong places, they will continue to be led astray.  Or worse.

I saw a news story out of Albuquerque that mentioned that "several organizations are asking how the (mayoral) candidates plan to keep people safe".

Sorry, but no mayor can "keep people safe".  Nor can their employees or co-workers.  That is YOUR job.

In a similar vein, some people beg politicians to show "leadership" on one issue or another.

Looking to politicians for leadership is like fishing for bluefin tuna in your kid's wading pool.  You're going to either come up empty, or someone is pulling a fast one on you.  Leadership from politicians?  You might as well beg a newborn to rebuild your transmission.

Any leadership you imagine you see from politicians will lead to the wrong place.  And why would you want to follow them anywhere?  This group of people is notoriously incapable of running their own personal lives.  Why would you want them "helping" you with yours?

Don't look for politicians to "help" the middle class, or families, or taxpayers, or anyone else.  They are not capable of doing anything to help anyone but themselves.  Even if they give the appearance of helping you, it is an illusion that will end up doing more harm in the long run.

The only positive effect any politician or bureaucrat can have is by getting out of the way.  But that isn't rewarded with votes; it looks too much like "doing nothing".  In truth, "nothing" is the best thing they can do.

Don't waste your precious life waiting for help to come from someone else.  Life is built from the bottom up, not handed down to you from Washington DC or Austin.

That doesn't mean it's completely pointless to pay attention to what the Keystone Kongress or the current president are doing.  If you like Three Stooges movies you may get a laugh from watching the elected buffoons, too.  Everyone needs a hobby.  Just don't take them too seriously, and never look to them to provide leadership of any sort.  That's a futile, and counterproductive, wish.

.

Liberty Lines- July 25, 2013 (Updated publication date)

(Oops!  This was originally posted here on the 18th, but it got bumped from the paper until the 25th.  That means it appears in the special Border Town Days edition of the paper.  That might be a good thing.

Published in the Farwell, Texas/Texico, New Mexico State Line Tribune, July 25, 2013)

-

Frederick Bastiat pointed out in 1850, in his book "The Law", that each of us has the individual right to life, liberty, and property, and that these rights predate any idea of law or government.

Because these rights exist, people discover Natural Law to protect them.

Once the laws have been discovered (not "written", as is every counterfeit "law") people often join together to form government, based upon the protection of life, liberty, and property, through those laws.

Anytime laws are written that do anything other than protect these individual rights, the laws have become perverted and harmful.

Anytime a government begins to pass and enforce these upside down and backwards "laws", the government has been corrupted; it has become a State.

As Albert Jay Nock pointed out in his 1935 book "Our Enemy, The State", once a society has rejected the social institution of government (which exists solely to assist in the protection of individual rights) for the inherently anti-social monstrosity of a State (which is based upon "laws" that violate life, liberty, and property for its own benefit), nothing can prevent its destruction.

The only thing that can be done at that point is to give the warning so that wise people can prepare.

Sadly, America is far down this path with the whole-hearted enthusiasm of most of its residents; supporting myriad "laws" that violate the nature of legitimate law and natural rights in more ways than it is possible to count. Look around and you will see property codes, taxes, prohibition, anti-gun "laws", requirements for licenses and permits, "national security"... the list could go on and on. Each and every one of these abominable counterfeit "laws" does the opposite of what legitimate government would do, and plays right into the hands of The State.

You've been warned. Prepare to ride it out and sit back and enjoy the show.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Liberty Lines, June 6, 2013- Farwell's new "Drug Dog"

(Published in the Farwell TX / Texico NM State Line Tribune, 6-6-2013)

We can debate the merits of the failed War on Politically Incorrect Drugs 'til the cows come home, but my observation is that prohibition- for "the common good", "for the children", or "for your own good"- always brings negative consequences.

In fact, I think the evidence is clear that the current prohibition, and the enforcement efforts related to it, have destroyed more lives (and trampled more liberty in the process) than all the drug abuse that has occurred since humans first discovered that ingesting certain substances made them feel different than normal.

And now I see that Farwell is joining the ignoble ranks of those who use trained dogs to "alert" on these forbidden substances.

It's faulty "science".  Yes, the "drug dogs" are trained to alert to the smell of drugs or similar odors, but dogs have a strong desire to please their pack leader.  This quickly translates into "I'll say I smell something because I know that's what my Alpha wants".  Even imperceptible unconscious signals quickly train the dog to do what is wanted.  Just like magic, you get the excuse you needed to violate the Fourth (and Ninth) Amendment- with the dishonest collusion of the Supreme Court.

Can dunking witches be far behind?

In past societies witches were "discovered" using similarly questionable tactics.  Burn the accused with red-hot iron, and if they survive unharmed, they are innocent.  Or tie them up and toss them in the cow pond; if they sink they are innocent, if they float they are guilty and can then be killed without burdening your conscience.  "They had it coming."  Everyone "knows" it's reliable, because the authorities insist it is.

Do I think abusing drugs is a good idea?  No.  I think it's stupid.  But abusing "law" and violating liberty in the name of criminalizing drug use is even worse.

These trained dogs are just for the convenience of the police and are damaging to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- which are the only justifications any government can ever have for existing.  When society is structured for the benefit of police, it is a police state.  This has no place in Farwell, or anywhere else liberty is given lip service.

.

Liberty Lines 4-4-2013

(Written for an audience that still gives lip-service to the Constitution and "government": State Line Tribune, Farwell TX.)

I love liberty.  Mine, yours, and the other guy's.  This gets twisted around and misinterpreted.  Some mistake liberty for "complete freedom from responsibility and consequences" and suggest it indicates "a lack of discipline and maturity".

How completely backwards they have it.

Freedom is only a component of liberty; not the whole story.  Freedom is doing whatever you want to do.  That can be good, bad, or neutral.  Liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate any other person's equal and identical liberty.

Thomas Jefferson phrased it like this: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”  In other words, you have no liberty to attack or steal, even if you have the freedom to do so and get away with it, because doing so violates someone else's equal rights.  You have either violated their person or their property.  Everything else is within your liberty to do, whether listed specifically in the Bill of Rights or not, even if some are offended by your actions- it's just none of their business.

Respecting liberty is the mature and responsible way to live among other people.  It is much more ethical and moral than relying on hired hands to enforce silly rules- rules which invariably violate Jeffersonian "rightful liberty"- against your neighbors.

When you ask others to violate the liberty of another person you are asking those you send on your behalf to accept all the responsibility and consequences for the wrong things you send them to do.  By doing so you are showing a definite lack of discipline and maturity.  But the responsibility is still yours, whether you accept it or not.

I, like Jefferson, prefer the "inconveniences" of "too much" liberty to those of too little.  You have chosen your side whether you know it or not.  Where do you stand?

.