LEOs and the Zero Aggression Principle
"Zero Aggression Principle...good luck with that"
That was a comment that was posted on the local newspaper's website in response to an earlier comment I had made stating that because I adhere to the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP), and because I will not lower myself to live on welfare, I would never consider being a modern LEO.
It just shows how incredibly stupid some people are. I don't need "good luck" with abiding by the ZAP because it always works, in real life, in the real situations that present themselves. The commenter obviously had no clue what I was even talking about (and the comments don't allow links), nor did he bother to do any research at all to find out.
These are the people we are surrounded by, and yet the ZAP still works in the face of such blatant ignorance and hostility. That shows its strength.
Every single day the news is full of LEOs in Albuquerque doing things we all know to be wrong when done by you or me, but mostly excused and justified when done by cops. When you consider the whole country, the number of examples are overwhelming. That is downright disgusting and positively delusional.
This brings up the question: Can you be a LEO and live by the ZAP? Enforcing "laws" that attempt to regulate or control anything other than actual aggression, theft, or fraud is a violation of the ZAP. I would not enforce such "laws" no matter what, so I would not last long as a LEO. I will not accept stolen money as payment for goods or "services" unless I had no clue the money was stolen, so that eliminates the option of any job that is funded by taxation.
Are there any ZAP-compliant options? I have stated in the past that I would accept a job as a real old-style sheriff- in other words just there to keep aggressors at bay and (mainly) to keep the feds and other LEOs away from the peaceable people who hired me, and make certain no counterfeit "laws" are enforced against anyone I worked for... as long as I was only paid with voluntary and anonymous contributions. Could I do such a job without violating my principles? I think so, but as soon as it became apparent I could not, I would resign. All LEOs should have the integrity to do the same.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
City proposes new registration scheme
City proposes new registration scheme
How does theft solve theft?
Because of theft at construction sites, the city of Albuquerque wants all construction equipment in the city to be registered with them.
I have questions. Is it mandatory? Will it eventually become mandatory? What are the penalties if a construction company doesn't wish to participate? How long until this program is embedded like "driver's licenses" or other intrusive programs? It is claimed that the program costs the city "very little" (of course, it actually costs "the city" nothing since cities have nothing of their own), but what happens when the front money from the Construction Industry Crime Alliance runs out? And just who gets to define "costs very little"?
Where does the money come from that pays for the time the LEOs spend administering the program? It is stolen through "taxation" from us all. The theft of even one cent or one minute of a person's time is inexcusable. This is a case of theft being used to "combat" theft. Two wrongs do not make a right. There is always an option that does not involve coercion or theft. Always. You just have to sit back and think how it would be solved if there were no government and no "legalized" theft at all.
If this is a real problem, why can't this be done by the market? It can. Why can't the Construction Industry Crime Alliance accomplish the same thing without getting government involved? If it is that important to their members. Or, if they have no stomach for actually solving problems there are other ways to approach it. Is construction equipment insured? Then let the insurance companies catalog and track the equipment for their customers. That way the cost would be added to the cost of doing business and would be paid by the customers of the construction companies rather than being charged to everyone including people who never use their services. If the equipment is not insured, then the money that would otherwise be spent on insurance could be saved toward the cost of replacing stolen equipment, plans and devices to prevent theft, and security for the construction sites. And not one cent or one second stolen from the innocent people who did not commit the thefts. It really is that simple.
How does theft solve theft?
Because of theft at construction sites, the city of Albuquerque wants all construction equipment in the city to be registered with them.
I have questions. Is it mandatory? Will it eventually become mandatory? What are the penalties if a construction company doesn't wish to participate? How long until this program is embedded like "driver's licenses" or other intrusive programs? It is claimed that the program costs the city "very little" (of course, it actually costs "the city" nothing since cities have nothing of their own), but what happens when the front money from the Construction Industry Crime Alliance runs out? And just who gets to define "costs very little"?
Where does the money come from that pays for the time the LEOs spend administering the program? It is stolen through "taxation" from us all. The theft of even one cent or one minute of a person's time is inexcusable. This is a case of theft being used to "combat" theft. Two wrongs do not make a right. There is always an option that does not involve coercion or theft. Always. You just have to sit back and think how it would be solved if there were no government and no "legalized" theft at all.
If this is a real problem, why can't this be done by the market? It can. Why can't the Construction Industry Crime Alliance accomplish the same thing without getting government involved? If it is that important to their members. Or, if they have no stomach for actually solving problems there are other ways to approach it. Is construction equipment insured? Then let the insurance companies catalog and track the equipment for their customers. That way the cost would be added to the cost of doing business and would be paid by the customers of the construction companies rather than being charged to everyone including people who never use their services. If the equipment is not insured, then the money that would otherwise be spent on insurance could be saved toward the cost of replacing stolen equipment, plans and devices to prevent theft, and security for the construction sites. And not one cent or one second stolen from the innocent people who did not commit the thefts. It really is that simple.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Drunk Albuquerque cop gets preferential treatment
Drunk Albuquerque cop gets preferential treatment
A sergeant with the Albuquerque police department who was found, not just "impaired", but passed out drunk, in his vehicle on the side of the road was given special treatment by a Bernalillo County sheriff's deputy. After being taken to the command center and failing a Breathalyzer test, he was sent home. Of course the drunk cop couldn't be put in the jail with "the general population" (who might have had a grudge against this particular "bad apple"). He might get hurt by people he had previously harmed in the course of his "job". The deputy has "discretion in these matters" and it isn't "uncommon", according to the sheriff.
My suspicion is that if it really is common practice, this means Albuquerque area LEOs run across a lot of drunk cops, because you can bet they would never exercise that "discretion" if it were you or me. They would fall all over themselves throwing us in a cell.
Now, don't misunderstand me; I have no problem with drunk (or otherwise sick or incapacitated) people being helped off the road and taken home or to a hospital until they recover. Not just passed out drunk LEOs. I think everyone who is "arrested" for "drunk driving", but who has not harmed anyone, is the target of an irrational vendetta and is an easy mark due to the statist brainwashing that has been going on for decades. This just goes to illustrate the "Only Ones" attitude that has taken over the "law enforcement" gang.
A sergeant with the Albuquerque police department who was found, not just "impaired", but passed out drunk, in his vehicle on the side of the road was given special treatment by a Bernalillo County sheriff's deputy. After being taken to the command center and failing a Breathalyzer test, he was sent home. Of course the drunk cop couldn't be put in the jail with "the general population" (who might have had a grudge against this particular "bad apple"). He might get hurt by people he had previously harmed in the course of his "job". The deputy has "discretion in these matters" and it isn't "uncommon", according to the sheriff.
My suspicion is that if it really is common practice, this means Albuquerque area LEOs run across a lot of drunk cops, because you can bet they would never exercise that "discretion" if it were you or me. They would fall all over themselves throwing us in a cell.
Now, don't misunderstand me; I have no problem with drunk (or otherwise sick or incapacitated) people being helped off the road and taken home or to a hospital until they recover. Not just passed out drunk LEOs. I think everyone who is "arrested" for "drunk driving", but who has not harmed anyone, is the target of an irrational vendetta and is an easy mark due to the statist brainwashing that has been going on for decades. This just goes to illustrate the "Only Ones" attitude that has taken over the "law enforcement" gang.
Monday, February 08, 2010
The illegality of cars and the re-birth of freedom
The illegality of cars and the re-birth of freedom
I'll let you in on a secret you may not be aware of: cars are illegal in America. Don't believe me? Then just try driving around Albuquerque, or any other populated area, in a car and see what happens when you are found to be in possession of that car. Not a "licensed and registered car", but just a car. Even if you pay the State all the demanded fees, simply being in possession of a car is an excuse to be stopped and searched by enforcers at any time without any warning. Anything as heavily regulated as a car can not honestly be considered "legal" anymore.
Most people are complacent in their ignorance. They may grumble a little bit about all the fees that are extorted from them yearly for the "privilege" of "owning" a car, but they fail to see that the situation illustrates a harsh truth. They don't want to see it because it would mean that their freedom has been destroyed and their rights have been violated by a government that is their mortal enemy. A government that far too many see as a "necessary evil" or even as a friendly father-figure.
I used to think that people would finally rebel when guns are outlawed, yet the realization that they have allowed their transportation to be outlawed, except within narrow boundaries and at the cost of thousands of dollars a year in governmental extortion, and done nothing makes me realize people will tolerate anything if it is presented to them dishonestly enough. This realization has had a positive effect on me.
It is up to individuals, who will be painted as "sociopathic cranks", to live their own liberty in any way they can. I read a question just the other day that keeps sticking in my mind: "What happens if millions of people just took off their license plates one day?" I don't know, but Liberty in America depends on something like that happening very soon.
You may think the current economic situation is grim, and it is more grim than people know if they listen to government hacks, yet unless a great many more people get serious about asserting Liberty, in spite of, and in open defiance of, government at all levels, the coming dark ages of tyranny will completely overshadow the economic collapse. You have been warned. Now what will you do?
This is a time of great opportunity for those who are willing to face the facts and then roll up their sleeves and get dirty to build a more free future for themselves.
**********************
I'll let you in on a secret you may not be aware of: cars are illegal in America. Don't believe me? Then just try driving around Albuquerque, or any other populated area, in a car and see what happens when you are found to be in possession of that car. Not a "licensed and registered car", but just a car. Even if you pay the State all the demanded fees, simply being in possession of a car is an excuse to be stopped and searched by enforcers at any time without any warning. Anything as heavily regulated as a car can not honestly be considered "legal" anymore.
Most people are complacent in their ignorance. They may grumble a little bit about all the fees that are extorted from them yearly for the "privilege" of "owning" a car, but they fail to see that the situation illustrates a harsh truth. They don't want to see it because it would mean that their freedom has been destroyed and their rights have been violated by a government that is their mortal enemy. A government that far too many see as a "necessary evil" or even as a friendly father-figure.
I used to think that people would finally rebel when guns are outlawed, yet the realization that they have allowed their transportation to be outlawed, except within narrow boundaries and at the cost of thousands of dollars a year in governmental extortion, and done nothing makes me realize people will tolerate anything if it is presented to them dishonestly enough. This realization has had a positive effect on me.
It is up to individuals, who will be painted as "sociopathic cranks", to live their own liberty in any way they can. I read a question just the other day that keeps sticking in my mind: "What happens if millions of people just took off their license plates one day?" I don't know, but Liberty in America depends on something like that happening very soon.
You may think the current economic situation is grim, and it is more grim than people know if they listen to government hacks, yet unless a great many more people get serious about asserting Liberty, in spite of, and in open defiance of, government at all levels, the coming dark ages of tyranny will completely overshadow the economic collapse. You have been warned. Now what will you do?
This is a time of great opportunity for those who are willing to face the facts and then roll up their sleeves and get dirty to build a more free future for themselves.
**********************
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Calculated miscarriage of justice in shooting incident
Calculated miscarriage of justice in shooting incident
To be filed under "someone has to be charged with something" is the example of Kenneth Therell and Billy Williamson.
In their home near Albuquerque, they fought and Williamson shot Therell, who then took the gun and killed Williamson, his attacker. OK, so maybe it isn't quite that cut and dried, but once someone shoots me, the pain and adrenaline would likely cloud my judgment and make me empty the gun into my attacker. After all, it was a .22, not a more effective caliber, and one shot with a .22 is unlikely to stop the attack. This all would be considered by reasonable people.
For the "authorities" to preemptively crow that Therell will be charged with "murder" when released from the hospital is arrogant, ridiculous, and unjust. It illustrates once again that government can not be trusted with the "justice system" since they have no clue how to wield it.
This is one of those cases where the true facts will probably never be known. In such a case the actions of the person defending themselves from an armed attack should not be second-guessed.
Will this let guilty people get away with murder? Yes, just like the current "charge anyone who survives" strategy does. It is better for an infinite number of guilty people to escape justice than for one innocent person to be punished by the State. Guilty people are likely to attack again, and when the State stays out of the way, there is a very good chance they will not survive their predations for long. The State makes it dangerous to protect yourself from attackers, and in doing so, makes it safe to be a thug. This is the opposite of "civilized" and "justice".
To be filed under "someone has to be charged with something" is the example of Kenneth Therell and Billy Williamson.
In their home near Albuquerque, they fought and Williamson shot Therell, who then took the gun and killed Williamson, his attacker. OK, so maybe it isn't quite that cut and dried, but once someone shoots me, the pain and adrenaline would likely cloud my judgment and make me empty the gun into my attacker. After all, it was a .22, not a more effective caliber, and one shot with a .22 is unlikely to stop the attack. This all would be considered by reasonable people.
For the "authorities" to preemptively crow that Therell will be charged with "murder" when released from the hospital is arrogant, ridiculous, and unjust. It illustrates once again that government can not be trusted with the "justice system" since they have no clue how to wield it.
This is one of those cases where the true facts will probably never be known. In such a case the actions of the person defending themselves from an armed attack should not be second-guessed.
Will this let guilty people get away with murder? Yes, just like the current "charge anyone who survives" strategy does. It is better for an infinite number of guilty people to escape justice than for one innocent person to be punished by the State. Guilty people are likely to attack again, and when the State stays out of the way, there is a very good chance they will not survive their predations for long. The State makes it dangerous to protect yourself from attackers, and in doing so, makes it safe to be a thug. This is the opposite of "civilized" and "justice".
Friday, February 05, 2010
Snow, messy roads, and who's responsible
Snow, messy roads, and who's responsible
I don't know about the roads in Albuquerque, but here on the Llano Estacado the recent snows left the roads pretty messy. I heard some people complaining about the government road crews and saying "why don't they clear the snow off?"
The thought had never even crossed my mind. Snow is not much of an impediment. I've driven through much, much worse. That's what 4-wheel drive is for, although I haven't always had it. If you don't have the proper vehicle for the conditions, why not? Is it because the State leaves you with barely enough for the inadequate vehicle you have now? Do taxes and regulations cripple the automobile industry keeping real innovations slow in coming? Do fuel requirements, due to government meddling, keep better, more effective and efficient vehicles from being put on the market? Or do you assume that the government will take care of the roads so making sure you are able to travel is not your responsibility?
That doesn't even begin to address the innovations that could make roads obsolete, but that are stifled by government protection of the status quo (or even the scaling back of technology "for safety").
The state steals enough of my money and I really would rather hold on to what's left instead of letting them buy more road-clearing equipment that wouldn't even be used once a lot of years. Remember that what government does with your money, it does with incredible inefficiency and waste. You are paying for streets of gold, but getting, well... what you currently have.
As I have thought for many years, and stated many times: Someday people will be amazed we ever settled for government-owned roads. Don't fool yourself into thinking you aren't already paying to drive on roads. Private road companies would not collect fares if their roads were impassable, and would be liable for damages if poor maintenance led to accidents and vehicle damage. If businesses financed the roads that serviced them, they would refuse to pay if the road conditions did not permit customers to reach them. This might mean heated roadways, or 24-hour road maintenance crews, or things we can't even imagine now.
So, dear highway department, Don't clear the roads on my behalf. I'll make my own way.
**************************
I don't know about the roads in Albuquerque, but here on the Llano Estacado the recent snows left the roads pretty messy. I heard some people complaining about the government road crews and saying "why don't they clear the snow off?"
The thought had never even crossed my mind. Snow is not much of an impediment. I've driven through much, much worse. That's what 4-wheel drive is for, although I haven't always had it. If you don't have the proper vehicle for the conditions, why not? Is it because the State leaves you with barely enough for the inadequate vehicle you have now? Do taxes and regulations cripple the automobile industry keeping real innovations slow in coming? Do fuel requirements, due to government meddling, keep better, more effective and efficient vehicles from being put on the market? Or do you assume that the government will take care of the roads so making sure you are able to travel is not your responsibility?
That doesn't even begin to address the innovations that could make roads obsolete, but that are stifled by government protection of the status quo (or even the scaling back of technology "for safety").
The state steals enough of my money and I really would rather hold on to what's left instead of letting them buy more road-clearing equipment that wouldn't even be used once a lot of years. Remember that what government does with your money, it does with incredible inefficiency and waste. You are paying for streets of gold, but getting, well... what you currently have.
As I have thought for many years, and stated many times: Someday people will be amazed we ever settled for government-owned roads. Don't fool yourself into thinking you aren't already paying to drive on roads. Private road companies would not collect fares if their roads were impassable, and would be liable for damages if poor maintenance led to accidents and vehicle damage. If businesses financed the roads that serviced them, they would refuse to pay if the road conditions did not permit customers to reach them. This might mean heated roadways, or 24-hour road maintenance crews, or things we can't even imagine now.
So, dear highway department, Don't clear the roads on my behalf. I'll make my own way.
**************************
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Liberty is in danger when legislature conspires
Liberty is in danger when legislature conspires
Looking over recent "work" by the legislature I notice a theme.
Senate Bill 55, sponsored by Sen. Sander Rue, R-Albuquerque, is supposed to help "missing people". Yet, its "solution" is not addressing the root of the problem. Missing people go missing for a variety of reasons. Some are taken against their will. Does this bill address why unwilling people are easily coerced? Does it make it less likely that an abduction would be successful? Does it remove "laws" against effective self-defense and the tools that make that possible? No, it only adds bureaucracy so that government entities can communicate with one another. What are the penalties if a government entity fails and someone goes missing, and stays missing until it is too late, anyway? What about people who choose to "go missing" for some reason?
Then there is a plan to steal more money from people who wish to buy things that taste good. "Taxing sugar". Remember, the state knows best, and you are a disobedient child who must be punished if you don't do as your "Mommy", the State orders you to do. That "Mommy" gets to make money off the deal is just unhealthy sugar in the icing on the cake. But, it's "for the children", don't you see?
More time is also being wasted, through SJM 29, passing nonsense, feel-good tripe that encourages congress to adopt "green energy" legislation. Never mind that no such authorization is anywhere to be found in the Constitution, and even if it were "authorized" by willfully-"misinterpreted" clauses, it would still be wrong. And of course, in spite of the lies to the contrary, this sort of "law" will only hurt the economy and individuals. Government does not "make jobs", but it destroys real jobs and replaces them with government parasites who suck up the stolen money without returning any value.
The legislators could be spending their time in productive pursuits, like repealing any and all "laws" that attempt to regulate, prohibit, or control anything other than actual aggression or theft. But then they would have to cease and desist from legislating, wouldn't they.
So the New Mexico legislative thugs are busy doing the only thing they know how to do: destroy liberty, and with it, America. It's a good thing their hubris and ignorance will soon render them a curious and tragic footnote in the history of civilization.
Looking over recent "work" by the legislature I notice a theme.
Senate Bill 55, sponsored by Sen. Sander Rue, R-Albuquerque, is supposed to help "missing people". Yet, its "solution" is not addressing the root of the problem. Missing people go missing for a variety of reasons. Some are taken against their will. Does this bill address why unwilling people are easily coerced? Does it make it less likely that an abduction would be successful? Does it remove "laws" against effective self-defense and the tools that make that possible? No, it only adds bureaucracy so that government entities can communicate with one another. What are the penalties if a government entity fails and someone goes missing, and stays missing until it is too late, anyway? What about people who choose to "go missing" for some reason?
Then there is a plan to steal more money from people who wish to buy things that taste good. "Taxing sugar". Remember, the state knows best, and you are a disobedient child who must be punished if you don't do as your "Mommy", the State orders you to do. That "Mommy" gets to make money off the deal is just unhealthy sugar in the icing on the cake. But, it's "for the children", don't you see?
More time is also being wasted, through SJM 29, passing nonsense, feel-good tripe that encourages congress to adopt "green energy" legislation. Never mind that no such authorization is anywhere to be found in the Constitution, and even if it were "authorized" by willfully-"misinterpreted" clauses, it would still be wrong. And of course, in spite of the lies to the contrary, this sort of "law" will only hurt the economy and individuals. Government does not "make jobs", but it destroys real jobs and replaces them with government parasites who suck up the stolen money without returning any value.
The legislators could be spending their time in productive pursuits, like repealing any and all "laws" that attempt to regulate, prohibit, or control anything other than actual aggression or theft. But then they would have to cease and desist from legislating, wouldn't they.
So the New Mexico legislative thugs are busy doing the only thing they know how to do: destroy liberty, and with it, America. It's a good thing their hubris and ignorance will soon render them a curious and tragic footnote in the history of civilization.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Happy Groundhog Day!
Today as families traditionally sit down to a table set with delicious roasted groundhog or groundhog stew, with all the fixin's, don't forget to thank the groundhog for his weather-forecasting abilities, which are never wrong. Or something like that.
What's YOUR favorite groundhog recipe?
What's YOUR favorite groundhog recipe?
Monday, February 01, 2010
'Give me your tired (of liberty-haters)...'
'Give me your tired (of liberty-haters)...'
Comparing America and England, and the respective dominant "cultures" of each, gave me an idea. Why not encourage all the gun-haters and otherwise self-hating, socialism-loving people to emigrate to England where guns are illegal and where self-defense is now routinely punished more harshly than aggression?
Then there would be plenty of room to encourage all the freedom-loving people of England to immigrate, with or without government "permission", to America. Let the conflicting cultures sort themselves out voluntarily through freedom of association. I would love to have men such as Philip A. Luty as my neighbor. Maybe with an influx of people who are knowledgeable on the subject of liberty it would be easier to overwhelm and crush the vermin of the BATFE and all the other anti-defense government agencies (and I guess that includes them all).
Of course, government would not "allow" that to happen, with all the "immigration" nonsense that is espoused. Once again, government and its sympathizers would be acting in ways that harm innocent people by their refusal to cooperate.
I'm not talking about any compulsory acts here; just encouragement. I have no obligation to make life easy for anyone who hates or fears liberty and guns (and the two are completely inseparable). Turn up the heat, and turn it up fast enough that the self-loathing frogs of statism jump out of the pot; while the liberty-lovers find the warm glow of real freedom a comfortable attractant.
Get rid of every single form of welfare, and every single gun "law". Those who don't wish to live that way would be completely free to go. They will make our lives better by leaving. No limits of how much cash they can take out of the country. Forget passports. Don't strip-search them at the airport. Nothing. Let them go. Then, similarly, put nothing at all in the way of those who wish to experience greater liberty here. Just get rid of any and all government rationing or regulation of immigration.
I would love to see the effect such a migration would have on the freedom of America, and on the decline of England. I'd even reverse destinations if it would make the logistics easier to accomplish.
Comparing America and England, and the respective dominant "cultures" of each, gave me an idea. Why not encourage all the gun-haters and otherwise self-hating, socialism-loving people to emigrate to England where guns are illegal and where self-defense is now routinely punished more harshly than aggression?
Then there would be plenty of room to encourage all the freedom-loving people of England to immigrate, with or without government "permission", to America. Let the conflicting cultures sort themselves out voluntarily through freedom of association. I would love to have men such as Philip A. Luty as my neighbor. Maybe with an influx of people who are knowledgeable on the subject of liberty it would be easier to overwhelm and crush the vermin of the BATFE and all the other anti-defense government agencies (and I guess that includes them all).
Of course, government would not "allow" that to happen, with all the "immigration" nonsense that is espoused. Once again, government and its sympathizers would be acting in ways that harm innocent people by their refusal to cooperate.
I'm not talking about any compulsory acts here; just encouragement. I have no obligation to make life easy for anyone who hates or fears liberty and guns (and the two are completely inseparable). Turn up the heat, and turn it up fast enough that the self-loathing frogs of statism jump out of the pot; while the liberty-lovers find the warm glow of real freedom a comfortable attractant.
Get rid of every single form of welfare, and every single gun "law". Those who don't wish to live that way would be completely free to go. They will make our lives better by leaving. No limits of how much cash they can take out of the country. Forget passports. Don't strip-search them at the airport. Nothing. Let them go. Then, similarly, put nothing at all in the way of those who wish to experience greater liberty here. Just get rid of any and all government rationing or regulation of immigration.
I would love to see the effect such a migration would have on the freedom of America, and on the decline of England. I'd even reverse destinations if it would make the logistics easier to accomplish.
Dog-nappings and purse snatchings: Here there be lessons
Dog-nappings and purse snatchings: Here there be lessons
It seems Albuquerque is experiencing a rather strange crime wave. Didn't the mayor just say he was wanting to declare a war on property crimes? Of course, I didn't hear him endorse the only thing that has any possible chance of actually reducing property crimes. That would be "unthinkable" for a confirmed, and unrepentant, statist.
I'm referring to the dog-nappings. I always have a small suspicion when it is claimed that any abducted animal, or person for that matter, is ill and possibly contagious and needs their medications immediately. It sounds like a ploy. I become more suspicious when the report quotes "officials". Still, theft is theft, and theft is always wrong. Unless you are reclaiming your property from the real thief, and it doesn't seem this was likely the case in either instance.
Even more dangerous are the purse snatchers who are working local parking lots. Stay armed, stay alert, and be aware. This is to say- stay ready. Don't look or act like a victim, but look like you can handle yourself. Look around you instead of watching the ground at your feet as you shuffle along. If nothing else, you will scare away predators because of your unusual behavior.
Thieves always deserve to encounter people who refuse to be victimized, but the state does all it can to protect thieves from the consequences of their actions. Too bad.
Obviously you can't guarantee you will never be attacked or have your property stolen. However, there are always things you can do to make your odds better; you will rarely hear them from those who depend on the proliferation of aggression and theft for their "job" security. Learn for yourself from those who have no horse in the race.
It seems Albuquerque is experiencing a rather strange crime wave. Didn't the mayor just say he was wanting to declare a war on property crimes? Of course, I didn't hear him endorse the only thing that has any possible chance of actually reducing property crimes. That would be "unthinkable" for a confirmed, and unrepentant, statist.
I'm referring to the dog-nappings. I always have a small suspicion when it is claimed that any abducted animal, or person for that matter, is ill and possibly contagious and needs their medications immediately. It sounds like a ploy. I become more suspicious when the report quotes "officials". Still, theft is theft, and theft is always wrong. Unless you are reclaiming your property from the real thief, and it doesn't seem this was likely the case in either instance.
Even more dangerous are the purse snatchers who are working local parking lots. Stay armed, stay alert, and be aware. This is to say- stay ready. Don't look or act like a victim, but look like you can handle yourself. Look around you instead of watching the ground at your feet as you shuffle along. If nothing else, you will scare away predators because of your unusual behavior.
Thieves always deserve to encounter people who refuse to be victimized, but the state does all it can to protect thieves from the consequences of their actions. Too bad.
Obviously you can't guarantee you will never be attacked or have your property stolen. However, there are always things you can do to make your odds better; you will rarely hear them from those who depend on the proliferation of aggression and theft for their "job" security. Learn for yourself from those who have no horse in the race.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Preparing for the census
Preparing for the census
Soon swarms of otherwise unemployed busybodies will begin wandering the streets of Albuquerque, invading your privacy and asking nosy and intrusive questions that no one needs to know the answers to. If you are only interested in whether things are "Constitutional" or not, then go ahead and answer the ONLY question the census is Constitutionally allowed to ask: how many people live in your house. Everything else that is asked is unconstitutional, which is a fancy way of saying illegal. No matter what "laws" have been passed in the intervening centuries "authorizing" the questions.
If you have any dignity and self-respect, then you will probably not answer any questions at all. After all, when the Constitution "authorizes" something wrong, the Constitution is wrong and is a force for evil.
The excuses used to justify the census are all statist excuses. Like saying they need to know how many children they will be locking up in the indoctrination centers in the coming decade. Like wanting to know how much effort the wealth redistribution schemes will be in the next ten years; where the money will be stolen from and where the vote-buying bribes will be concentrated. Or, so they will know how to gerrymander districts to manipulate the vote for those who still participate in that rigged game.
There is no legitimate reason for a census, and no good reason to voluntarily cooperate. Especially for anyone who values liberty.
At the very least, maybe a good case of "situational delirium" would serve you well. For example:
You can probably think up better responses, but none is better than the one which trumps them all: ignore the census.
Soon swarms of otherwise unemployed busybodies will begin wandering the streets of Albuquerque, invading your privacy and asking nosy and intrusive questions that no one needs to know the answers to. If you are only interested in whether things are "Constitutional" or not, then go ahead and answer the ONLY question the census is Constitutionally allowed to ask: how many people live in your house. Everything else that is asked is unconstitutional, which is a fancy way of saying illegal. No matter what "laws" have been passed in the intervening centuries "authorizing" the questions.
If you have any dignity and self-respect, then you will probably not answer any questions at all. After all, when the Constitution "authorizes" something wrong, the Constitution is wrong and is a force for evil.
The excuses used to justify the census are all statist excuses. Like saying they need to know how many children they will be locking up in the indoctrination centers in the coming decade. Like wanting to know how much effort the wealth redistribution schemes will be in the next ten years; where the money will be stolen from and where the vote-buying bribes will be concentrated. Or, so they will know how to gerrymander districts to manipulate the vote for those who still participate in that rigged game.
There is no legitimate reason for a census, and no good reason to voluntarily cooperate. Especially for anyone who values liberty.
At the very least, maybe a good case of "situational delirium" would serve you well. For example:
"Yes, we are a family of 17 Antarctican immigrants who belong to the Jedi Order,
and live with our pets whom we have married in three-and-a-half-way
marriages. We have no clue whose children these are living among us.
We have 3 bathrooms, but no indoor plumbing. Our electricity is provided
by our tank of electric eels. Our house has 197 3/4 rooms if you count the
8 other spatial dimensions which are wrapped around us. ...You've got a
little string of 7th dimension on your elbow even now. Please don't
take it with you when you leave, since that is where my archaeopteryx
sleeps. But, it's time to bow to the carpet slugs now, so I must go.
May you serve the picklewarts with gusto!"
You can probably think up better responses, but none is better than the one which trumps them all: ignore the census.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Senate Bill 40- a shabby patch for a bad 'law'
Senate Bill 40- a shabby patch for a bad 'law'
I have written before about the fact that the political "solution" for bad "laws" is not new "laws" but the repeal of the bad "laws". No one is listening to me.
Senate Bill 40 is a "new" proposed "law" that seeks to undo some damage caused by older bad "laws". What it would do is "allow" people with concealed weapon permits to carry their weapon into a restaurant that serves alcohol. How "nice" of the Law Givers to let people beg for "legal" permission to do something that is already a basic human right, not subject to limitation, licensing, or other forms of infringement. Whether this is "a good idea" or not and whether such a right might be abused, isn't even part of the equation. If you think it is, you are demonstrating that you don't understand the nature of rights at all.
So, listen up, Albuquerque. I'll let you in on a little secret: people are already carrying concealed weapons in those restaurants regardless of the "law". All around you, everywhere you go. And the vast majority of them pose zero threat to your life whatsoever, but are instead an insurance policy that you don't even have to pay for.
Bad guys won't obey "laws" that would forbid them from doing what they are going to do no matter what, so they will always carry weapons. After all, if they have no moral difficulty violating prohibitions against theft and aggression, up to and including rape and murder, a silly "law" telling them to leave their tools behind will never, ever, make any difference to them.
But the bad guys are not the only ones ignoring such "laws". A lot of good guys know it is better to face "legal" penalties than to be caught unprepared, no matter what the "law" demands. In some cases you just have to do what you think is right and be prepared to accept the consequences of your choices. Fortunately, the good guys outnumber the bad guys by a huge margin. Any LEO who can't understand that and then muster the ethical courage necessary to refuse to enforce bad "laws" is a part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Yet, with all these "illegal" weapons around, shootouts are extremely rare in local restaurants, alcohol or not. Why is that? Aggressors are usually cowards. They prefer, and need, unarmed targets; those willing to become victims. As long as the bad guys understand, and fear, that not all the good people around them are obeying the counterfeit "law", shootouts and armed robberies are less likely. And to anyone who values peace and liberty, that is a good thing.
I have written before about the fact that the political "solution" for bad "laws" is not new "laws" but the repeal of the bad "laws". No one is listening to me.
Senate Bill 40 is a "new" proposed "law" that seeks to undo some damage caused by older bad "laws". What it would do is "allow" people with concealed weapon permits to carry their weapon into a restaurant that serves alcohol. How "nice" of the Law Givers to let people beg for "legal" permission to do something that is already a basic human right, not subject to limitation, licensing, or other forms of infringement. Whether this is "a good idea" or not and whether such a right might be abused, isn't even part of the equation. If you think it is, you are demonstrating that you don't understand the nature of rights at all.
So, listen up, Albuquerque. I'll let you in on a little secret: people are already carrying concealed weapons in those restaurants regardless of the "law". All around you, everywhere you go. And the vast majority of them pose zero threat to your life whatsoever, but are instead an insurance policy that you don't even have to pay for.
Bad guys won't obey "laws" that would forbid them from doing what they are going to do no matter what, so they will always carry weapons. After all, if they have no moral difficulty violating prohibitions against theft and aggression, up to and including rape and murder, a silly "law" telling them to leave their tools behind will never, ever, make any difference to them.
But the bad guys are not the only ones ignoring such "laws". A lot of good guys know it is better to face "legal" penalties than to be caught unprepared, no matter what the "law" demands. In some cases you just have to do what you think is right and be prepared to accept the consequences of your choices. Fortunately, the good guys outnumber the bad guys by a huge margin. Any LEO who can't understand that and then muster the ethical courage necessary to refuse to enforce bad "laws" is a part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Yet, with all these "illegal" weapons around, shootouts are extremely rare in local restaurants, alcohol or not. Why is that? Aggressors are usually cowards. They prefer, and need, unarmed targets; those willing to become victims. As long as the bad guys understand, and fear, that not all the good people around them are obeying the counterfeit "law", shootouts and armed robberies are less likely. And to anyone who values peace and liberty, that is a good thing.
Liberty? In Albuquerque?
Liberty? In Albuquerque?
Can you really have liberty in Albuquerque? Being a big city there are more violations of your rights and limits on your freedoms in Albuquerque than in most smaller towns, and vastly more than in rural areas. Yet, if you are smart, and maybe a little sneaky, you can still experience liberty.
Think of it as a game, because in a very real way it is. The fact that the bad guys, those authoritarians who hate you for daring to live free, will kill you for making a wrong move doesn't take away the game aspects. It just makes it more important to win. The only way to truly "lose" the liberty game is to not even try. The fact of the matter is that we are all playing the game whether we wanted to or not, and no one finishes the game while they are alive. You might as well find a way to have fun while you play.
There is no need to flee the city for liberty. Big cities offer things that are very enriching and important to a lot of people. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. There is a vibrancy in having so many people to interact with and so many choices of things to see and do that many people would get bored stiff without. Not me, but "many people".
In most cases (but not all), unless you attract the attention of a LEO in some way, you will be ignored. Don't dress like a doughnut and don't walk around swatting at the invisible faeries that swarm around your head. Do what you know to be the right thing. Obey "laws" that are not unduly restrictive when there are busybodies about, otherwise ignore them. Think of the state as you would any other mafia, and make the payoffs you can't avoid, and don't feel guilty about the rest. Remember that it isn't wrong to lie to aggressors or liars- and that is all the government consists of. Carry your chosen weapon concealed and make a habit of avoiding metal detectors or coming up with expedient weapons where a metal detector or pedophile-o-vision can't be avoided. If you open carry, as is still your "legal" right, pay attention to your surroundings and don't let the predatory LEOs catch you off guard and sneak up from behind, or surround you. Suffer from mental lapses or numerical dyslexia when asked for your slave numbers. Assume liberty, but stay alert to those who assume they own you and believe they have the authority to require you to die for their convenience.
Choose your battles and pick your playing level. If you stand out like a pumpkin in a strawberry patch you will obviously attract more attention than the freedom outlaw strawberry who blends in with his surroundings. For you, individuality may be important enough to accept the greater risk. No one can blame you for your choices as long as you deal with your consequences.
Realize that there will be times you make a bad move, or the organs of the city or state will get lucky. You may get punished, and it will not be right or "fair". Don't mistake that for a loss; it is just a temporary set-back as long as you are still breathing. Either way, your life will be richer because you didn't just bend over and take it. One person at a time is how liberty is spread. One person at a time the job of the enforcers and other aggressors can be made more frustrating and pointless, and their lies will be laid bare. Life is a rush for the liberated human. When your life is finished, don't just wish you had given it a try.
Can you really have liberty in Albuquerque? Being a big city there are more violations of your rights and limits on your freedoms in Albuquerque than in most smaller towns, and vastly more than in rural areas. Yet, if you are smart, and maybe a little sneaky, you can still experience liberty.
Think of it as a game, because in a very real way it is. The fact that the bad guys, those authoritarians who hate you for daring to live free, will kill you for making a wrong move doesn't take away the game aspects. It just makes it more important to win. The only way to truly "lose" the liberty game is to not even try. The fact of the matter is that we are all playing the game whether we wanted to or not, and no one finishes the game while they are alive. You might as well find a way to have fun while you play.
There is no need to flee the city for liberty. Big cities offer things that are very enriching and important to a lot of people. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. There is a vibrancy in having so many people to interact with and so many choices of things to see and do that many people would get bored stiff without. Not me, but "many people".
In most cases (but not all), unless you attract the attention of a LEO in some way, you will be ignored. Don't dress like a doughnut and don't walk around swatting at the invisible faeries that swarm around your head. Do what you know to be the right thing. Obey "laws" that are not unduly restrictive when there are busybodies about, otherwise ignore them. Think of the state as you would any other mafia, and make the payoffs you can't avoid, and don't feel guilty about the rest. Remember that it isn't wrong to lie to aggressors or liars- and that is all the government consists of. Carry your chosen weapon concealed and make a habit of avoiding metal detectors or coming up with expedient weapons where a metal detector or pedophile-o-vision can't be avoided. If you open carry, as is still your "legal" right, pay attention to your surroundings and don't let the predatory LEOs catch you off guard and sneak up from behind, or surround you. Suffer from mental lapses or numerical dyslexia when asked for your slave numbers. Assume liberty, but stay alert to those who assume they own you and believe they have the authority to require you to die for their convenience.
Choose your battles and pick your playing level. If you stand out like a pumpkin in a strawberry patch you will obviously attract more attention than the freedom outlaw strawberry who blends in with his surroundings. For you, individuality may be important enough to accept the greater risk. No one can blame you for your choices as long as you deal with your consequences.
Realize that there will be times you make a bad move, or the organs of the city or state will get lucky. You may get punished, and it will not be right or "fair". Don't mistake that for a loss; it is just a temporary set-back as long as you are still breathing. Either way, your life will be richer because you didn't just bend over and take it. One person at a time is how liberty is spread. One person at a time the job of the enforcers and other aggressors can be made more frustrating and pointless, and their lies will be laid bare. Life is a rush for the liberated human. When your life is finished, don't just wish you had given it a try.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Abusive Albuquerque teacher is just a symptom
Abusive Albuquerque teacher is just a symptom
A local mother is understandably upset that an Albuquerque special education teacher taped her son's mouth shut. As horrible as this act was, the fact that public government schools bind the students' minds all day long in every school should make people fighting mad.
Many children behave terribly. Of that there is no doubt. However, if you can't handle that fact of life without becoming abusive you are in the wrong line of work. In a free society no "teacher" of this sort would likely keep a job after the first offense.
The unfortunate truth is that the "system" the government has embraced and labeled "education" is not suited for most healthy, active young people. It magnifies and reinforces bad behavior all in the name of "discipline" and "conformity".
Public schools are the reproductive organs of the state. They are more honestly referred to as "government indoctrination centers" and are prisons used to punish kids for the "crime" of being between certain ages. Public schools train pliable minds to not think of alternatives to coercion and authoritarianism. Without this brainwashing few people would grow up to accept the status quo of government control over all aspects of their lives and the run-away socialism that calls itself by so many euphemisms. This is why, even when home schooling is "allowed", the state tries to make sure just enough of the toxic statism meme is introduced into the young minds to make the state's job easier later on. It comes from both the "left" and the "right". Call it "patriotism" or "social awareness"; the results are the same.
Then there is the physical slave training that public schools engage in. From begging permission (which is sometimes denied) to take care of bodily needs, to the Pavlovian training regarding obedience to the schedule of the bells, schools are actively training children to accept their place as someone else's property. Once you understand this, how can you allow your children to be abused that way even one more day?
For an eye-opening education on the education racket, read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education and support the Alliance for the Separation of School and State. Education is MUCH too important to let government control it in any way.
A local mother is understandably upset that an Albuquerque special education teacher taped her son's mouth shut. As horrible as this act was, the fact that public government schools bind the students' minds all day long in every school should make people fighting mad.
Many children behave terribly. Of that there is no doubt. However, if you can't handle that fact of life without becoming abusive you are in the wrong line of work. In a free society no "teacher" of this sort would likely keep a job after the first offense.
The unfortunate truth is that the "system" the government has embraced and labeled "education" is not suited for most healthy, active young people. It magnifies and reinforces bad behavior all in the name of "discipline" and "conformity".
Public schools are the reproductive organs of the state. They are more honestly referred to as "government indoctrination centers" and are prisons used to punish kids for the "crime" of being between certain ages. Public schools train pliable minds to not think of alternatives to coercion and authoritarianism. Without this brainwashing few people would grow up to accept the status quo of government control over all aspects of their lives and the run-away socialism that calls itself by so many euphemisms. This is why, even when home schooling is "allowed", the state tries to make sure just enough of the toxic statism meme is introduced into the young minds to make the state's job easier later on. It comes from both the "left" and the "right". Call it "patriotism" or "social awareness"; the results are the same.
Then there is the physical slave training that public schools engage in. From begging permission (which is sometimes denied) to take care of bodily needs, to the Pavlovian training regarding obedience to the schedule of the bells, schools are actively training children to accept their place as someone else's property. Once you understand this, how can you allow your children to be abused that way even one more day?
For an eye-opening education on the education racket, read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education and support the Alliance for the Separation of School and State. Education is MUCH too important to let government control it in any way.
Albuquerque, Albuquerque, Albuquerque
In case you have noticed more emphasis on "Albuquerque" in my Examiner columns, it is because Examiner.com has changed how we writers are paid. In fact, they have changed how they decide if they will keep the writers altogether.
Now, "local content" is critical. Of course, as I have pointed out to Examiner many, many times I DO NOT LIVE IN OR NEAR ALBUQUERQUE. If I don't write about "local" Albuquerque stuff, I will be financially penalized and may lose my spot on Examiner completely. My communications with Examiner have met with some completely off-topic and pointless replies.
So, I now look online for ABQ news, and use what I find as a jumping-off point for writing the same sorts of things I would write anyway. In some ways it's easier; in others it irritates the heck out of me. Reading the news is like drinking lye to me. The really disgusting thing is when I do this and still get an email from Examiner saying a particular column doesn't qualify. Like I got today.
But, I need the money. So, buy my books, please, so I won't depend as much on Examiner!
Indy-Pindy
Kent's Liberty Primer
Sandy's Legacy
-------------------------
Now, "local content" is critical. Of course, as I have pointed out to Examiner many, many times I DO NOT LIVE IN OR NEAR ALBUQUERQUE. If I don't write about "local" Albuquerque stuff, I will be financially penalized and may lose my spot on Examiner completely. My communications with Examiner have met with some completely off-topic and pointless replies.
So, I now look online for ABQ news, and use what I find as a jumping-off point for writing the same sorts of things I would write anyway. In some ways it's easier; in others it irritates the heck out of me. Reading the news is like drinking lye to me. The really disgusting thing is when I do this and still get an email from Examiner saying a particular column doesn't qualify. Like I got today.
But, I need the money. So, buy my books, please, so I won't depend as much on Examiner!
Indy-Pindy
Kent's Liberty Primer
Sandy's Legacy
-------------------------
Monday, January 25, 2010
Nannies worry about 'new' drugs
Nannies worry about 'new' drugs
Welcome to the law of unintended consequences, Albuquerque authoritarians. Because of the disastrous "War on (some) Drugs", which only you support, some people are turning to things such as Salvia and Gonjah for thrills.
Don't act surprised by the entirely logical and predictable outcome of your control-freak behavior, and don't repeat your standard knee-jerk mistake of passing new "laws" to cover the "new" intoxicants. It has never, not in all of human history, worked, and it isn't going to work "next time" either.
If you (or others like you) make one thing "illegal" then those who, for one reason or another, still care about your ridiculous edicts will find something else, something you haven't yet criminalized, in order to get the same or similar effect. The next thing may not be as safe as Cannabis. In fact it may be as destructive when abused as alcohol.
The desire to "get high" is ingrained so deeply that it is just a part of being human. Even very young children spin endlessly until too dizzy to stand for the same exact sensation. This isn't "learned behavior". "Laws" and draconian punishments will never suppress that desire. A risk of damaged health or even death can't stop it, why do you think the threat of violence by the state's thugs will?
The "costs of drug use", if looked at with discernment, can be clearly seen to actually be costs of penalizing "drug use" in almost every instance. From aggression to "crime" to imprisonment, and even "impaired behavior" accidents; almost all can be traced back to the way "drug use" is dealt with by society and the state rather than as an inevitable consequence of using the substance. The people who use the substances without being caught suffer almost none of the societal ill-effects which are used to justify prohibition.
Even if a substance had a 50% or higher mortality rate, it is still out of reach of the legitimate authority of anyone to prohibit others from using it on themselves. Your favorite drug, "Government", has a very, very high mortality rate, and yet it is about the only thing still "legal".
Neither is the answer to "legalize" and tax "drugs", in spite of what some suggest. The state "needs" and deserves no money at all. I would rather see "drugs" kept "illegal" to keep the money out of the wrong hands than to allow government to profit from the sale and use of more substances.
It is long past time to once again get government out of our medicine cabinets. End the unethical "War on Drugs" and return to the sanity of treating the addicts who need help and leaving everyone else alone.
**************************
A hearty "Welcome back to the world of blogging" to Claire Wolfe! You have been missed!
************************
Here is another review of Indy-Pindy, this time from The Price of Liberty.
**************************
Welcome to the law of unintended consequences, Albuquerque authoritarians. Because of the disastrous "War on (some) Drugs", which only you support, some people are turning to things such as Salvia and Gonjah for thrills.
Don't act surprised by the entirely logical and predictable outcome of your control-freak behavior, and don't repeat your standard knee-jerk mistake of passing new "laws" to cover the "new" intoxicants. It has never, not in all of human history, worked, and it isn't going to work "next time" either.
If you (or others like you) make one thing "illegal" then those who, for one reason or another, still care about your ridiculous edicts will find something else, something you haven't yet criminalized, in order to get the same or similar effect. The next thing may not be as safe as Cannabis. In fact it may be as destructive when abused as alcohol.
The desire to "get high" is ingrained so deeply that it is just a part of being human. Even very young children spin endlessly until too dizzy to stand for the same exact sensation. This isn't "learned behavior". "Laws" and draconian punishments will never suppress that desire. A risk of damaged health or even death can't stop it, why do you think the threat of violence by the state's thugs will?
The "costs of drug use", if looked at with discernment, can be clearly seen to actually be costs of penalizing "drug use" in almost every instance. From aggression to "crime" to imprisonment, and even "impaired behavior" accidents; almost all can be traced back to the way "drug use" is dealt with by society and the state rather than as an inevitable consequence of using the substance. The people who use the substances without being caught suffer almost none of the societal ill-effects which are used to justify prohibition.
Even if a substance had a 50% or higher mortality rate, it is still out of reach of the legitimate authority of anyone to prohibit others from using it on themselves. Your favorite drug, "Government", has a very, very high mortality rate, and yet it is about the only thing still "legal".
Neither is the answer to "legalize" and tax "drugs", in spite of what some suggest. The state "needs" and deserves no money at all. I would rather see "drugs" kept "illegal" to keep the money out of the wrong hands than to allow government to profit from the sale and use of more substances.
It is long past time to once again get government out of our medicine cabinets. End the unethical "War on Drugs" and return to the sanity of treating the addicts who need help and leaving everyone else alone.
**************************
A hearty "Welcome back to the world of blogging" to Claire Wolfe! You have been missed!
************************
Here is another review of Indy-Pindy, this time from The Price of Liberty.
**************************
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Want a better world? Don't impose your values on others
Want a better world? Don't impose your values on others
Browsing through the "news" I find a lot of evidence that people don't wish to deal with things themselves. They would rather send the hired guns of government in their place. This is the lazy coward's way out, and it is wrong.
The whole "texting and driving" issue is but one example. Another is the recent focus on "blight" in Clovis.
If something really is a problem that needs to be solved- and that isn't always as clear as some would want you to think it is- then the proper way to deal with it is to take care of it yourself. The wrong way is to pass another "law" that will then use the guns of government (paid for with money stolen from the very people at whom those guns end up being aimed) to enforce your values on people who obviously do not share them.
It is your responsibility to watch out for yourself.
It is your responsibility to not initiate force, not personally and not by proxy.
It is your responsibility to be aware of your surroundings and remember that others may not be aware of theirs.
It is your responsibility to mind your own business.
It is your responsibility to respect the rights of others and to keep in mind that you have no right to not be offended and that a real right never imposes an obligation on another person, no matter how much you wish it would, and no matter what your justifications might be.
And, if something annoys or upsets you, it is your responsibility to take steps, at your own expense and on your own property, to shield yourself from that annoyance. It is not up to the one who is annoying you as long as he is not trespassing or threatening you.
This makes me think of the "Serenity Prayer", which states: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference." Yet, one thing (not the only thing) about this "prayer" has always bothered me. Not everything that can be changed, should be changed. Real wisdom needs to be able to tell the difference there as well, if serenity is ever to be found. Getting over the addiction of feeling that you have the right to control the non-aggressive behavior of others can be extremely liberating. Give it a try.
Don't forget to check out and contribute to Project LTE. A letter-to-the-editor needs you!
Notice the mighty fine "Time's Up" flag near the end of this post on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.
Browsing through the "news" I find a lot of evidence that people don't wish to deal with things themselves. They would rather send the hired guns of government in their place. This is the lazy coward's way out, and it is wrong.
The whole "texting and driving" issue is but one example. Another is the recent focus on "blight" in Clovis.
If something really is a problem that needs to be solved- and that isn't always as clear as some would want you to think it is- then the proper way to deal with it is to take care of it yourself. The wrong way is to pass another "law" that will then use the guns of government (paid for with money stolen from the very people at whom those guns end up being aimed) to enforce your values on people who obviously do not share them.
It is your responsibility to watch out for yourself.
It is your responsibility to not initiate force, not personally and not by proxy.
It is your responsibility to be aware of your surroundings and remember that others may not be aware of theirs.
It is your responsibility to mind your own business.
It is your responsibility to respect the rights of others and to keep in mind that you have no right to not be offended and that a real right never imposes an obligation on another person, no matter how much you wish it would, and no matter what your justifications might be.
And, if something annoys or upsets you, it is your responsibility to take steps, at your own expense and on your own property, to shield yourself from that annoyance. It is not up to the one who is annoying you as long as he is not trespassing or threatening you.
This makes me think of the "Serenity Prayer", which states: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference." Yet, one thing (not the only thing) about this "prayer" has always bothered me. Not everything that can be changed, should be changed. Real wisdom needs to be able to tell the difference there as well, if serenity is ever to be found. Getting over the addiction of feeling that you have the right to control the non-aggressive behavior of others can be extremely liberating. Give it a try.
Don't forget to check out and contribute to Project LTE. A letter-to-the-editor needs you!
Notice the mighty fine "Time's Up" flag near the end of this post on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Texting and driving is a battleground for liberty
Texting and driving is a battleground for liberty
Come on, New Mexico. Grow up and resist the peer pressure. If all the other states jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too? Well, if the bridge is marked "Texting and driving laws", it seems the answer might be an enthusiastic "yes".
"There oughta be a law...". With that phrase, time after time, freedom has been lost and rights have been violated. It happens every time some "well-meaning" person recognizes a problem without being able to think of a rational solution. Will a new "law" prevent texting drivers from being the cause of accidents? Don't bet on it. All it will do is give the enforcers an excuse for shaking down drivers and provide a new source of income, stolen income, for the state.
New "laws" are never the answer. An anti-texting (and anti-phoning) "law" will do nothing for anyone who is hurt in an accident; it will only be misused like all other "laws" inevitably are. People who cause accidents are already punished, so there is no need to provide for another punishment on top of the existing excuses for punishment. This "law" will only be used on those people who have not harmed anyone on the assumption that they might, in the future, cause an accident.
Then there is the added insult of criminalizing the peaceful act of talking on the phone while driving- without a "hands-free device" anyway. If this becomes the "law", then it must be applied equally to any LEO who talks on his police radio while driving. There is no difference in the two actions.
What's the next "big danger" to be forbidden? Talking to people in the car with you? Listening to the radio? Thinking?
When will this insanity end? This law pollution, making sure there is a "law" covering every possible action a person might take, dilutes all the "laws"; making them all less likely to be followed. When everything is either prohibited or mandatory people tend to ignore the "law" entirely. To me this is a good thing. The drawback is when some people only get their "ethics" from what the state says is right or wrong. These people, instead of just ignoring ridiculous "laws", reject right and wrong altogether, unable to tell the difference due to too many "laws" that remove their need to think for themselves.
Is it smart to text while you drive? Probably not. Will the new "law" have unintended consequences? They all do.
"Laws" can never replace personal responsibility. If someone causes harm, they need to pay restitution. Until then, mind your own business. And, as always, pay attention to the other drivers- because you can NEVER count on them paying attention to you, texting or not. "Laws" are just an excuse to abdicate your own responsibility and hand it over to someone else.
Come on, New Mexico. Grow up and resist the peer pressure. If all the other states jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too? Well, if the bridge is marked "Texting and driving laws", it seems the answer might be an enthusiastic "yes".
"There oughta be a law...". With that phrase, time after time, freedom has been lost and rights have been violated. It happens every time some "well-meaning" person recognizes a problem without being able to think of a rational solution. Will a new "law" prevent texting drivers from being the cause of accidents? Don't bet on it. All it will do is give the enforcers an excuse for shaking down drivers and provide a new source of income, stolen income, for the state.
New "laws" are never the answer. An anti-texting (and anti-phoning) "law" will do nothing for anyone who is hurt in an accident; it will only be misused like all other "laws" inevitably are. People who cause accidents are already punished, so there is no need to provide for another punishment on top of the existing excuses for punishment. This "law" will only be used on those people who have not harmed anyone on the assumption that they might, in the future, cause an accident.
Then there is the added insult of criminalizing the peaceful act of talking on the phone while driving- without a "hands-free device" anyway. If this becomes the "law", then it must be applied equally to any LEO who talks on his police radio while driving. There is no difference in the two actions.
What's the next "big danger" to be forbidden? Talking to people in the car with you? Listening to the radio? Thinking?
When will this insanity end? This law pollution, making sure there is a "law" covering every possible action a person might take, dilutes all the "laws"; making them all less likely to be followed. When everything is either prohibited or mandatory people tend to ignore the "law" entirely. To me this is a good thing. The drawback is when some people only get their "ethics" from what the state says is right or wrong. These people, instead of just ignoring ridiculous "laws", reject right and wrong altogether, unable to tell the difference due to too many "laws" that remove their need to think for themselves.
Is it smart to text while you drive? Probably not. Will the new "law" have unintended consequences? They all do.
"Laws" can never replace personal responsibility. If someone causes harm, they need to pay restitution. Until then, mind your own business. And, as always, pay attention to the other drivers- because you can NEVER count on them paying attention to you, texting or not. "Laws" are just an excuse to abdicate your own responsibility and hand it over to someone else.
Friday, January 22, 2010
A 'threat'? Hardly
A 'threat'? Hardly
Since when is it a "threat" to tell a known aggressor "if you attack me, I will fight back"?
David Codrea got accused of making that sort of "threat" recently, and I have been the target of the same accusation several times in the past. It seems some people's definitions have gotten a bit topsy-turvy.
It serves the forces of coercion very well to threaten to "tax" me, and then when I say "no, if you try I will defend myself" to start whining that I have made a threat. Sorry, but the thief who announces his intention to rob me has made the threat. If he follows through he has set a series of events in motion, and he may not be pleased with the end results.
The same goes for those who announce their intention to violate any of my rights (for example, those who attempt to take my property against my will by the above-mentioned "taxation" and will threaten to kidnap me if I don't comply, or those who try to change rights into privileges). It matters not if the one making the threats is the one thinking up the "law" or the one whose "job" it is to enforce that "law". A threat is a threat, and an attack is an attack. The target of the attack has no obligation to allow the attack to succeed, no matter what the "law" may be. And stating that aggression will be met with resistance or defensive force is not a "threat".
Since when is it a "threat" to tell a known aggressor "if you attack me, I will fight back"?
David Codrea got accused of making that sort of "threat" recently, and I have been the target of the same accusation several times in the past. It seems some people's definitions have gotten a bit topsy-turvy.
It serves the forces of coercion very well to threaten to "tax" me, and then when I say "no, if you try I will defend myself" to start whining that I have made a threat. Sorry, but the thief who announces his intention to rob me has made the threat. If he follows through he has set a series of events in motion, and he may not be pleased with the end results.
The same goes for those who announce their intention to violate any of my rights (for example, those who attempt to take my property against my will by the above-mentioned "taxation" and will threaten to kidnap me if I don't comply, or those who try to change rights into privileges). It matters not if the one making the threats is the one thinking up the "law" or the one whose "job" it is to enforce that "law". A threat is a threat, and an attack is an attack. The target of the attack has no obligation to allow the attack to succeed, no matter what the "law" may be. And stating that aggression will be met with resistance or defensive force is not a "threat".
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Home invasion victim survives one; can he survive the second?
Home invasion victim survives one; can he survive the second?
Provisional good news! Someone tried to break into a home and consequences caught up with him. All home invasions should end this way; with the invader dead. In a free society, people like the dead man might decide to get honest work. Or be darwinized out of the gene-pool. Of course, this event may still cause problems for the home's residents if the "law" has its way. No good deed goes unpunished in Governmentland.
Why is the case being sent to the DA? Must make sure there isn't something, anything, that the defender can be charged with before they let him go about his life. Did the LEOs unethically confiscate his gun, his protection, as "evidence" until they can decide if he should have died quietly instead of adding to their workload? What if someone else decides to break into this same home in the meantime? Will the "law" accept responsibility?
Of course, we all know why the enforcers want a search warrant for the home that was being invaded: they are hoping to find "drugs" or some other "reason" the aggressor was trying so desperately to get inside. This is just another example of the stupidity of the War on (some) Drugs. Government causes the theft and violence problem by artificially limiting supply through prohibition, then uses the logical results of prohibition to net even more innocent people.
This is why the policy of "shoot, shovel, and shut up" is still the best, and why his neighbors did him no favor by calling the LEOs. Good luck to the defender, good riddance to the parasite, and "Good grief" to the "law".
Provisional good news! Someone tried to break into a home and consequences caught up with him. All home invasions should end this way; with the invader dead. In a free society, people like the dead man might decide to get honest work. Or be darwinized out of the gene-pool. Of course, this event may still cause problems for the home's residents if the "law" has its way. No good deed goes unpunished in Governmentland.
Why is the case being sent to the DA? Must make sure there isn't something, anything, that the defender can be charged with before they let him go about his life. Did the LEOs unethically confiscate his gun, his protection, as "evidence" until they can decide if he should have died quietly instead of adding to their workload? What if someone else decides to break into this same home in the meantime? Will the "law" accept responsibility?
Of course, we all know why the enforcers want a search warrant for the home that was being invaded: they are hoping to find "drugs" or some other "reason" the aggressor was trying so desperately to get inside. This is just another example of the stupidity of the War on (some) Drugs. Government causes the theft and violence problem by artificially limiting supply through prohibition, then uses the logical results of prohibition to net even more innocent people.
This is why the policy of "shoot, shovel, and shut up" is still the best, and why his neighbors did him no favor by calling the LEOs. Good luck to the defender, good riddance to the parasite, and "Good grief" to the "law".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)