Using what you pay for- paying for what you use
I was recently drawn into a debate in the comments on another blog. The author was telling the story of his son who has Asperger's Syndrome. In relating his experiences he mentioned that his son is enrolled in a public school for kids with special needs. This was latched onto as hypocrisy by some commenters. I think this is a gross misunderstanding of reality by people who simply do not wish to understand, so here is my two cents' worth.
I have no objection to people using what they pay for. You and I are forced to pay for public schools whether we use them or not. This is similar to the situation with government roads. You pay for them, and in the case of roads, it is impossible to avoid them, so there is no hypocrisy in using what you pay for.
Welfare involves people using things they didn't pay for. Things that other people were forced to pay for. This is not what the author was involved in. Not by a long shot.
The hypocrisy is in pretending that it is OK to have a government monopoly, or to force people to pay for something twice if they wish to use an available private option. Opting out of the government "option", including not paying for it if you choose to not use it, should always be allowed.
There is nothing carved in stone saying that using public schools is against the Libertarian Commandments. I do not think public schools are the best choice for educating your children, and in many (or most) cases I think they are even abusive. However, as long as you are being forced, at gunpoint, to pay for these schools, it is your choice to use them with a clear conscience. Until you notice your children are being harmed; then the game has changed
_________________________
The Albuquerque man who admitted murdering a couple (that's two people) on March 7th has been indicted on 17 charges. This is stupid, wasteful, and ridiculous on a scale only possible under government. Forget everything except the two murder charges and save some of that stolen "tax" loot for other things. This is what happens when you get to spend money you didn't have to earn. Just another reminder that there needs to be a separation of court and state.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Pursuit of happiness
Pursuit of happiness
What is it you want most from life? Can you get it without hurting (which includes defrauding and stealing from) other people? If you can, what is stopping you? What conditions would allow you to achieve your desire? In what sort of society would you be most likely to reach that which you want most?
I'd be willing to bet that as long as your innermost desires do not involve hurting anyone else, the only things really standing in the way are connected in some way to government. Either "laws" that prevent you from doing what you want, or "laws" that allow someone else to block your personal dreams. Remember that corporations are the "third leg" of government, and are often used with that function in mind.
I think this may be part of the origin of the hatred and bitterness so common to statists. But their bile is misdirected. They can not admit or face that they have been wrong all along, so their venom is hurled at those who show them how they could have what it is they need if only they would take responsibility for themselves. Be patient and some of them will eventually stop fanging themselves in frustration. Some may even finally allow themselves to be happy.
___________________________
In Albuquerque news, the state has given authority to the Bernalillo County Fire Department to operate ambulance services east of the city. Who gave the state the authority to give authority? Why is there a need for better services in this area? Probably it has something to do with government "granting" or withholding permission (through red tape, regulations, and "licensing") to companies who are willing to provide the service. In other words the market is being interfered with "for our protection" and is creating a shortage. Then, into this governmentally-created crisis, SuperState swoops in to "save" the day. It's the same old story, time after time.
What is it you want most from life? Can you get it without hurting (which includes defrauding and stealing from) other people? If you can, what is stopping you? What conditions would allow you to achieve your desire? In what sort of society would you be most likely to reach that which you want most?
I'd be willing to bet that as long as your innermost desires do not involve hurting anyone else, the only things really standing in the way are connected in some way to government. Either "laws" that prevent you from doing what you want, or "laws" that allow someone else to block your personal dreams. Remember that corporations are the "third leg" of government, and are often used with that function in mind.
I think this may be part of the origin of the hatred and bitterness so common to statists. But their bile is misdirected. They can not admit or face that they have been wrong all along, so their venom is hurled at those who show them how they could have what it is they need if only they would take responsibility for themselves. Be patient and some of them will eventually stop fanging themselves in frustration. Some may even finally allow themselves to be happy.
___________________________
In Albuquerque news, the state has given authority to the Bernalillo County Fire Department to operate ambulance services east of the city. Who gave the state the authority to give authority? Why is there a need for better services in this area? Probably it has something to do with government "granting" or withholding permission (through red tape, regulations, and "licensing") to companies who are willing to provide the service. In other words the market is being interfered with "for our protection" and is creating a shortage. Then, into this governmentally-created crisis, SuperState swoops in to "save" the day. It's the same old story, time after time.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Concensus and 'need' are not sufficient
Concensus and 'need' are not sufficient
Government may be an effective way to get some things you see no other way of getting, but it is still always wrong to use coercion. In the same vein, rape may be an effective way to "have sex" or to "feel strong and dominant" but it is always wrong, no matter how powerful your need and no matter the circumstances.
Even if you would die unless you use government to steal on your behalf you are not right if you do so. This is a harsh reality, but it is still reality. Just like you may not like the fact that if you try to walk across the surface of the moon without protective equipment the realities of the Universe will cause your death. You may think it is "not fair" but the Universe does not care.
"Fair" is not a part of reality, except when people with ethics intervene. Intervention can go either way. People can intervene for good or for evil. Coercion, theft, and fraud are forms of intervention that are always on the side of evil and any "good" that can come from them is nullified by the harm they cause. Both to the aggressor and to his victim.
If everyone- every regular person, every philosopher, every scientist, and every other expert on earth throughout all of human history- agreed that aggression and theft were OK as long as you wear the silly hat of government, and not even one person ever questioned this premise, they would still all be wrong. That is enough for me.
This has a connection with the traffic camera news from my previous column.
The Albuquerque City Council is upset that this new law could end the entire traffic camera program in Albuquerque. What a shame. Look, Albuquerque City Council, theft is wrong even if you think the city really needs the stolen money. And to attempt to justify those profitable cameras by saying their loot pays for your entire camera system is completely twisted. If you (or your program) can't survive without stealing from travelers you don't deserve to survive. Go find an honest job somewhere, hope for charity, or starve.
Government may be an effective way to get some things you see no other way of getting, but it is still always wrong to use coercion. In the same vein, rape may be an effective way to "have sex" or to "feel strong and dominant" but it is always wrong, no matter how powerful your need and no matter the circumstances.
Even if you would die unless you use government to steal on your behalf you are not right if you do so. This is a harsh reality, but it is still reality. Just like you may not like the fact that if you try to walk across the surface of the moon without protective equipment the realities of the Universe will cause your death. You may think it is "not fair" but the Universe does not care.
"Fair" is not a part of reality, except when people with ethics intervene. Intervention can go either way. People can intervene for good or for evil. Coercion, theft, and fraud are forms of intervention that are always on the side of evil and any "good" that can come from them is nullified by the harm they cause. Both to the aggressor and to his victim.
If everyone- every regular person, every philosopher, every scientist, and every other expert on earth throughout all of human history- agreed that aggression and theft were OK as long as you wear the silly hat of government, and not even one person ever questioned this premise, they would still all be wrong. That is enough for me.
This has a connection with the traffic camera news from my previous column.
The Albuquerque City Council is upset that this new law could end the entire traffic camera program in Albuquerque. What a shame. Look, Albuquerque City Council, theft is wrong even if you think the city really needs the stolen money. And to attempt to justify those profitable cameras by saying their loot pays for your entire camera system is completely twisted. If you (or your program) can't survive without stealing from travelers you don't deserve to survive. Go find an honest job somewhere, hope for charity, or starve.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Robotic revenuers banned
Robotic revenuers banned
New Mexico is outlawing robotic highwaymen on "state-owned" highways. Some people may euphemistically call these robber-bots "traffic cameras".
This is good, as far as it goes, but it is a little like making it illegal for a mugger to use a switchblade while he robs and attacks you, but saying it's OK for him to keep robbing and attacking you as long as he uses a different weapon. Get rid of all the "laws" that legalize theft-by-state.
It is wrong to steal money from a driver who has caused no harm to any individual. "Might" hurt someone is a catch-all justification that could get us all at any time no matter what we are doing. Wearing the silly hat of government does not make an act of theft ethical.
Some people claim that the government owns the roads and can therefore set the rules however they like. Governments can not "own" roads, since nothing they possess was purchased with their own money, but was obtained by using theft ("taxation" and "eminent domain"), and a thief does not own the stolen property he possesses.
If a driver causes harm through carelessness or anything else, have him pay damages to the damaged individual; not to the government. More money in government hands is never a good idea.
Here is a list of some of the "state-owned" roads around Albuquerque that have been the scene of this particular form of theft in the recent past:
•Interstates 25 and 40
•Coors Boulevard
•Paseo del Norte
Remember that this only applies to "state-owned" highways and interstates and that these are not the only places where the electronic highwaymen are lurking. As long as a city, rather than the state, pretends to "own" a road the cameras may still be there continuing to commit theft on behalf of the city. Traveler beware.
New Mexico is outlawing robotic highwaymen on "state-owned" highways. Some people may euphemistically call these robber-bots "traffic cameras".
This is good, as far as it goes, but it is a little like making it illegal for a mugger to use a switchblade while he robs and attacks you, but saying it's OK for him to keep robbing and attacking you as long as he uses a different weapon. Get rid of all the "laws" that legalize theft-by-state.
It is wrong to steal money from a driver who has caused no harm to any individual. "Might" hurt someone is a catch-all justification that could get us all at any time no matter what we are doing. Wearing the silly hat of government does not make an act of theft ethical.
Some people claim that the government owns the roads and can therefore set the rules however they like. Governments can not "own" roads, since nothing they possess was purchased with their own money, but was obtained by using theft ("taxation" and "eminent domain"), and a thief does not own the stolen property he possesses.
If a driver causes harm through carelessness or anything else, have him pay damages to the damaged individual; not to the government. More money in government hands is never a good idea.
Here is a list of some of the "state-owned" roads around Albuquerque that have been the scene of this particular form of theft in the recent past:
•Interstates 25 and 40
•Coors Boulevard
•Paseo del Norte
Remember that this only applies to "state-owned" highways and interstates and that these are not the only places where the electronic highwaymen are lurking. As long as a city, rather than the state, pretends to "own" a road the cameras may still be there continuing to commit theft on behalf of the city. Traveler beware.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Helping 'cases' or helping people?
Helping 'cases' or helping people?
Filed in the "Laws solve nothing" file:
The case of an Albuquerque woman's disappearance inspired calls for a new law to make sure it never happens again. The headline says the new law will help "missing persons cases", but that is missing the target. It does nothing to help the missing person. By the time a person is realized to be missing and the "law" comes into play, it is too late. The only way to help the person is to make certain they never go missing in the first place.
That isn't always possible, of course, but the solution is never "new laws". Instead, let's make sure every woman knows the most effective tool to allow her to defeat a stronger attacker, without suffering harm herself, is a firearm. The only person who is always present when the attack occurs, other than the attacker, is the victim. That person needs to have the knowledge, the skills, and the tools to help themselves when the attack occurs.
Let's make sure she has no reason to fear being punished or "investigated" too intrusively after being forced to fight back. The presumption of innocence needs to always be on the person who was not the aggressor; the person who does not have a history of attacks on innocent people. Let's make sure she (or he) understands that government, especially the police, has no obligation to save any individual and that relying on them can be a fatal mistake.
In other words, get rid of the "laws" that criminalize self-defense and the necessary tools of self-defense. It won't solve everything. Nothing will. But it won't be adding to the problem anymore. And that is a great beginning.
Filed in the "Laws solve nothing" file:
The case of an Albuquerque woman's disappearance inspired calls for a new law to make sure it never happens again. The headline says the new law will help "missing persons cases", but that is missing the target. It does nothing to help the missing person. By the time a person is realized to be missing and the "law" comes into play, it is too late. The only way to help the person is to make certain they never go missing in the first place.
That isn't always possible, of course, but the solution is never "new laws". Instead, let's make sure every woman knows the most effective tool to allow her to defeat a stronger attacker, without suffering harm herself, is a firearm. The only person who is always present when the attack occurs, other than the attacker, is the victim. That person needs to have the knowledge, the skills, and the tools to help themselves when the attack occurs.
Let's make sure she has no reason to fear being punished or "investigated" too intrusively after being forced to fight back. The presumption of innocence needs to always be on the person who was not the aggressor; the person who does not have a history of attacks on innocent people. Let's make sure she (or he) understands that government, especially the police, has no obligation to save any individual and that relying on them can be a fatal mistake.
In other words, get rid of the "laws" that criminalize self-defense and the necessary tools of self-defense. It won't solve everything. Nothing will. But it won't be adding to the problem anymore. And that is a great beginning.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Random hatred or statist desperation?
Random hatred or statist desperation?
I am noticing a shift in the attitude of the statists online. I began to notice it before the recent misguided yet amusing comments began to flood my column, but this event certainly made me consciously aware of something that was only subconsciously noticed before.
The shift I speak of is a definite drift toward nastiness and hatred. Not just in the off-the-mark vitriol they post in my comments section, but other places as well. Theirs is not the attitude of people who think they have the high ground; rather it reeks of desperation.
I read the same tired and discredited arguments thrown up time after time, when they try to present arguments at all, that is. I see the same sorts of insults tossed randomly at the wrong target. I notice the same "fingers-in-the-ears, screaming 'La-la-la'" tactic employed again and again. In all this I recognize the militant denial of the loser.
There has always been the odd authoritarian around who can not meet criticism of his chosen religion (state worship) without snapping, but I am seeing it more and more these days. They can't refute the arguments, so they just start striking out however they can. They must know their time as the dominant, or at least loudest, ideology is coming to an end. The panic of realization is setting in.
Perhaps it is due to the repeated failure of coercion to make anything resembling a "better world". Maybe it is due to the stress of seeing fiat money systems collapsing. Maybe their "hope and change", or their "traditional values" have let them down one too many times.
It is sad to see people losing all they have ever believed in, but that's the tragedy of believing in something that is wrong. If they can stop throwing stones long enough to listen, there are plenty of people willing to teach them how to help themselves. However, the responsibility for their own destruction rests solely upon their own heads if they refuse to grow up.
Instead of finding this "attention" disheartening, I find it a confirmation of being on the correct path. Feel free to respond to this "person" as he leaves his fetid droppings everywhere, if you are so inclined. I, however, am finished with him*. You can't reason with a carrot.
*However, I will not delete his comments since they illustrate my point so well. Give the monkey a loaded gun and stand back.
_______________________________
A group of mentally disabled people (not the commenter referred to above, as far as I know) was found to be locked inside their Albuquerque home. A home managed by a "corporation" (a government-favored business) that receives operating money from government might not be the best place to place your disadvantaged relatives. Private business and individuals are more accountable to their customers. But, that's just my opinion. Fortunately, no one died in this case.
I am noticing a shift in the attitude of the statists online. I began to notice it before the recent misguided yet amusing comments began to flood my column, but this event certainly made me consciously aware of something that was only subconsciously noticed before.
The shift I speak of is a definite drift toward nastiness and hatred. Not just in the off-the-mark vitriol they post in my comments section, but other places as well. Theirs is not the attitude of people who think they have the high ground; rather it reeks of desperation.
I read the same tired and discredited arguments thrown up time after time, when they try to present arguments at all, that is. I see the same sorts of insults tossed randomly at the wrong target. I notice the same "fingers-in-the-ears, screaming 'La-la-la'" tactic employed again and again. In all this I recognize the militant denial of the loser.
There has always been the odd authoritarian around who can not meet criticism of his chosen religion (state worship) without snapping, but I am seeing it more and more these days. They can't refute the arguments, so they just start striking out however they can. They must know their time as the dominant, or at least loudest, ideology is coming to an end. The panic of realization is setting in.
Perhaps it is due to the repeated failure of coercion to make anything resembling a "better world". Maybe it is due to the stress of seeing fiat money systems collapsing. Maybe their "hope and change", or their "traditional values" have let them down one too many times.
It is sad to see people losing all they have ever believed in, but that's the tragedy of believing in something that is wrong. If they can stop throwing stones long enough to listen, there are plenty of people willing to teach them how to help themselves. However, the responsibility for their own destruction rests solely upon their own heads if they refuse to grow up.
Instead of finding this "attention" disheartening, I find it a confirmation of being on the correct path. Feel free to respond to this "person" as he leaves his fetid droppings everywhere, if you are so inclined. I, however, am finished with him*. You can't reason with a carrot.
*However, I will not delete his comments since they illustrate my point so well. Give the monkey a loaded gun and stand back.
_______________________________
A group of mentally disabled people (not the commenter referred to above, as far as I know) was found to be locked inside their Albuquerque home. A home managed by a "corporation" (a government-favored business) that receives operating money from government might not be the best place to place your disadvantaged relatives. Private business and individuals are more accountable to their customers. But, that's just my opinion. Fortunately, no one died in this case.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Overcoming a prejudice- better late than never
Overcoming a prejudice- better late than never
One mental stumbling block that took me a long time to get past was being concerned when someone was known to be a "convicted criminal". I know it is stupid, and even back then I intellectually understood that most "crimes" are not actually wrong, plus being "convicted" of something isn't even very good proof that you really did it. Still, the brainwashing was powerful and hard to shake.
I was finally able to get past this blockage several years ago. Now I don't care if someone has been convicted of a "crime". I only care if they really did something that is actually wrong, not just "illegal".
Of course, I have known people who had been convicted of various things which are flat-out wrong. Things like aggression and theft. Some of these people didn't even deny doing the bad things. They simply have no principles that allow them to see that doing these things is wrong. Or they think circumstances excuse them. They are wrong. I still have prejudices against this type of person.
Even worse are those who I know to be engaged in committing acts of aggression, fraud, and theft with the approval of the State. Many of these are employed by the State itself, although some just pretend to be since they idolize the "occupational parasites".
_________________________
As if you need reminders of why it is necessary and smart to stay alert and armed at all times, a "man" from Albuquerque drove all the way to Oklahoma City to attack his wife (who apparently had good reason to leave this jealous psychopath) and set her on fire in front of their three children. You don't know how much I'd prefer reading that she had shot and killed this rabid monster as soon as he entered her home. But, alas, it was not to be. This tragedy is your learning opportunity. Use it.
One mental stumbling block that took me a long time to get past was being concerned when someone was known to be a "convicted criminal". I know it is stupid, and even back then I intellectually understood that most "crimes" are not actually wrong, plus being "convicted" of something isn't even very good proof that you really did it. Still, the brainwashing was powerful and hard to shake.
I was finally able to get past this blockage several years ago. Now I don't care if someone has been convicted of a "crime". I only care if they really did something that is actually wrong, not just "illegal".
Of course, I have known people who had been convicted of various things which are flat-out wrong. Things like aggression and theft. Some of these people didn't even deny doing the bad things. They simply have no principles that allow them to see that doing these things is wrong. Or they think circumstances excuse them. They are wrong. I still have prejudices against this type of person.
Even worse are those who I know to be engaged in committing acts of aggression, fraud, and theft with the approval of the State. Many of these are employed by the State itself, although some just pretend to be since they idolize the "occupational parasites".
_________________________
As if you need reminders of why it is necessary and smart to stay alert and armed at all times, a "man" from Albuquerque drove all the way to Oklahoma City to attack his wife (who apparently had good reason to leave this jealous psychopath) and set her on fire in front of their three children. You don't know how much I'd prefer reading that she had shot and killed this rabid monster as soon as he entered her home. But, alas, it was not to be. This tragedy is your learning opportunity. Use it.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Pitting governments against one another
Pitting governments against one another
As much as I value individual liberty, and probably to a large extent because I value individual liberty, I must admit I enjoy seeing governments fighting one another. I just try to stay out of the way and not get caught in the crossfire.
This is why I support the "state sovereignty" and secession movements, at least in spirit. Even though I owe a "state" no more loyalty than I owe a "nation" (none at all), it amuses me to think of the two governments posturing and fighting.
The same goes for the Firearms Freedom Acts being introduced in various states. I don't expect any state government to actually arrest or kill ATF agents who try to enforce nullified federal gun "laws", but even the empty blustering makes me smile.
Then there are the medical marijuana laws. The DEA's house of cards, burdened with decades of lies and abuses- including murders by the hundreds, continues to get shakier and more transparent with each passing day. For state governments to stop buying the load of bull the federal drug warriors keep trying to sell is a fun thing to witness. Once again I don't expect to see DEA thugs or their local rabid attack dogs punished in any meaningful way by more local governments, but I like to see the friction between various gears of government increasing.
It is even what makes me like certain candidates, even if I don't play the "voting game" anymore. Getting an uncooperative person elected, someone who will cause The State nothing but problems and gridlock, would please me. I like it even better if the person is biased toward liberty rather than toward some form of socialism that the rest of the government tools uncharacteristically dislike.
So, what about it Albuquerque? Are there any more monkey-wrenches lying around that can be thrown in the works? How about some of you pushing for a New Mexico Firearms Freedom Act? Or a "Sovereign New Mexico" movement? Why not increase the demand for medical marijuana?
And, finally, a friend asked me to pass this along- If you still participate in electoral politics and want to help with a campaign, Adam Kokesh is probably the best New Mexico candidate for messing with the status quo, and although his district doesn't quite include Albuquerque, it gets close. Allison Gibbs is working for Adam Kokesh; seeking help getting a thousand signatures for "some ballot difficulty". If you feel so inclined, help her.
As much as I value individual liberty, and probably to a large extent because I value individual liberty, I must admit I enjoy seeing governments fighting one another. I just try to stay out of the way and not get caught in the crossfire.
This is why I support the "state sovereignty" and secession movements, at least in spirit. Even though I owe a "state" no more loyalty than I owe a "nation" (none at all), it amuses me to think of the two governments posturing and fighting.
The same goes for the Firearms Freedom Acts being introduced in various states. I don't expect any state government to actually arrest or kill ATF agents who try to enforce nullified federal gun "laws", but even the empty blustering makes me smile.
Then there are the medical marijuana laws. The DEA's house of cards, burdened with decades of lies and abuses- including murders by the hundreds, continues to get shakier and more transparent with each passing day. For state governments to stop buying the load of bull the federal drug warriors keep trying to sell is a fun thing to witness. Once again I don't expect to see DEA thugs or their local rabid attack dogs punished in any meaningful way by more local governments, but I like to see the friction between various gears of government increasing.
It is even what makes me like certain candidates, even if I don't play the "voting game" anymore. Getting an uncooperative person elected, someone who will cause The State nothing but problems and gridlock, would please me. I like it even better if the person is biased toward liberty rather than toward some form of socialism that the rest of the government tools uncharacteristically dislike.
So, what about it Albuquerque? Are there any more monkey-wrenches lying around that can be thrown in the works? How about some of you pushing for a New Mexico Firearms Freedom Act? Or a "Sovereign New Mexico" movement? Why not increase the demand for medical marijuana?
And, finally, a friend asked me to pass this along- If you still participate in electoral politics and want to help with a campaign, Adam Kokesh is probably the best New Mexico candidate for messing with the status quo, and although his district doesn't quite include Albuquerque, it gets close. Allison Gibbs is working for Adam Kokesh; seeking help getting a thousand signatures for "some ballot difficulty". If you feel so inclined, help her.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Government 'requests'- The answer is always 'no'
Government 'requests'- The answer is always 'no'
The standard response to any government "request", demand, or threat should be a firm "No". Whether it is the census, a demand to comply with a new "law", or any other authoritarian nonsense.
Now, I realize it is hard to actually look a person in the eye and refuse to cooperate with them. I know from personal experience it is even hard to talk to a flesh-and-blood vampire of the State on the phone and refuse to cooperate when they are being desperately polite. Especially when that person is simply trying to do their job, and they think their job is "good" for society (even as it harms the individuals who comprise that society). You will be labeled a "troublemaker" and the simple-minded bureaucrat will not understand why you don't just give in. I'm certain it is the same in Albuquerque as it is everywhere else.
I don't judge anyone for doing what they feel they must. But I ask you to really think about it the next time you are presented with the choice to stand up for yourself or grovel on your knees. Because, really, there is no choice.
Speaking of the census; don't forget that there is no justification for it that passes the "baloney test". Read this again if you need a reminder.
The standard response to any government "request", demand, or threat should be a firm "No". Whether it is the census, a demand to comply with a new "law", or any other authoritarian nonsense.
Now, I realize it is hard to actually look a person in the eye and refuse to cooperate with them. I know from personal experience it is even hard to talk to a flesh-and-blood vampire of the State on the phone and refuse to cooperate when they are being desperately polite. Especially when that person is simply trying to do their job, and they think their job is "good" for society (even as it harms the individuals who comprise that society). You will be labeled a "troublemaker" and the simple-minded bureaucrat will not understand why you don't just give in. I'm certain it is the same in Albuquerque as it is everywhere else.
I don't judge anyone for doing what they feel they must. But I ask you to really think about it the next time you are presented with the choice to stand up for yourself or grovel on your knees. Because, really, there is no choice.
Speaking of the census; don't forget that there is no justification for it that passes the "baloney test". Read this again if you need a reminder.
Guns in restaurants
Guns in restaurants
Now that Governor Richardson has made it "legal" you may soon be dining in a restaurant, which serves some alcohol, next to someone carrying a concealed weapon; a situation which would have been utterly impossible under the old prohibition. Or, at least that is the government's story.
Sorry to disappoint the governor, but people have always carried into those restaurants anyway.
Both good people who understand the concept of "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" and bad guys who obviously have no ethical problem breaking laws which prohibit theft, murder, and other acts of aggression and who will never be stopped by a silly "law" prohibiting them from carrying a gun somewhere.
Notice, too, that attacking innocent people with that gun is still not permitted. Unless you are a LEO, of course, judging by the "Only Ones" news. In the world of real right and wrong, it's all about the act of aggression, not the tool you use.
Next time you are dining in a restaurant in Albuquerque, look around you. Is the person sitting at the next booth or table armed? By its very definition, if that person is carrying a concealed weapon, how would you know?
You have always had a basic human right which predates even the very first government ever imagined to own and to carry ("keep and bear") any weapon you think will help you survive an attack, regardless of any governmental wishes, restrictions, or "laws". Use it.
__________________
ID "borrowing"?
A while back I had the odd experience of running across a MySpace profile which appears to be me, but which I didn't set up. That profile picture is my cartoonified self which I use frequently, and those are some of my links. Could the bad link to my blog have been the point of the whole thing? To phish information? Or could it have been an honest mistake in linking? Some info is obviously wrong. Here is my real MySpace profile.
I sent the other "me" a friend request, but I guess "I" haven't logged in since then. Very odd, indeed.
I'm not quite sure whether to be flattered or creeped out. At least the fake "me" hasn't posted anything (as far as I can see) that offends me or drags my reputation through the dirt (worse than I do on my own, I mean). I suppose it just goes to show the utility of googling yourself from time to time.
Now that Governor Richardson has made it "legal" you may soon be dining in a restaurant, which serves some alcohol, next to someone carrying a concealed weapon; a situation which would have been utterly impossible under the old prohibition. Or, at least that is the government's story.
Sorry to disappoint the governor, but people have always carried into those restaurants anyway.
Both good people who understand the concept of "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" and bad guys who obviously have no ethical problem breaking laws which prohibit theft, murder, and other acts of aggression and who will never be stopped by a silly "law" prohibiting them from carrying a gun somewhere.
Notice, too, that attacking innocent people with that gun is still not permitted. Unless you are a LEO, of course, judging by the "Only Ones" news. In the world of real right and wrong, it's all about the act of aggression, not the tool you use.
Next time you are dining in a restaurant in Albuquerque, look around you. Is the person sitting at the next booth or table armed? By its very definition, if that person is carrying a concealed weapon, how would you know?
You have always had a basic human right which predates even the very first government ever imagined to own and to carry ("keep and bear") any weapon you think will help you survive an attack, regardless of any governmental wishes, restrictions, or "laws". Use it.
__________________
ID "borrowing"?
A while back I had the odd experience of running across a MySpace profile which appears to be me, but which I didn't set up. That profile picture is my cartoonified self which I use frequently, and those are some of my links. Could the bad link to my blog have been the point of the whole thing? To phish information? Or could it have been an honest mistake in linking? Some info is obviously wrong. Here is my real MySpace profile.
I sent the other "me" a friend request, but I guess "I" haven't logged in since then. Very odd, indeed.
I'm not quite sure whether to be flattered or creeped out. At least the fake "me" hasn't posted anything (as far as I can see) that offends me or drags my reputation through the dirt (worse than I do on my own, I mean). I suppose it just goes to show the utility of googling yourself from time to time.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Over-cooperation with the state
Over-cooperation with the state
I'll admit it. This story from the Albuquerque area, which has "gone national", has me stumped as to what to think.
A woman who decided she was too drunk to drive, stopped driving, called the cops to report herself, and was then arrested by the grateful LEO.
Now, since she had not hurt anyone, and had pulled off the road like a responsible person would do, and even (foolishly) reported herself to the "authorities", it seems those "authorities" should have had the decency to go easy on her. Perhaps take her home and thank her for being responsible enough to stop driving as soon as she realized she shouldn't be driving.
Instead, as is usually the case when the State (in the generic sense of the term) is involved, she had to be punished. After all, there is no money or power to be grabbed by the state unless criminal charges or "civil penalties" can be levied. Right?
Obviously, her mental state was not right, judging by statements she made to the responding deputy. The same observation could be made about anyone who hands themselves over to agents of the state, though.
I suppose the lesson here is that some people are just too brainwashed into the cult of Ruler-worship to recognize that calling the "authorities" isn't the smart thing to do. I doubt these same people would hesitate even an instant before doing you or I the same "favor".
I'll admit it. This story from the Albuquerque area, which has "gone national", has me stumped as to what to think.
A woman who decided she was too drunk to drive, stopped driving, called the cops to report herself, and was then arrested by the grateful LEO.
Now, since she had not hurt anyone, and had pulled off the road like a responsible person would do, and even (foolishly) reported herself to the "authorities", it seems those "authorities" should have had the decency to go easy on her. Perhaps take her home and thank her for being responsible enough to stop driving as soon as she realized she shouldn't be driving.
Instead, as is usually the case when the State (in the generic sense of the term) is involved, she had to be punished. After all, there is no money or power to be grabbed by the state unless criminal charges or "civil penalties" can be levied. Right?
Obviously, her mental state was not right, judging by statements she made to the responding deputy. The same observation could be made about anyone who hands themselves over to agents of the state, though.
I suppose the lesson here is that some people are just too brainwashed into the cult of Ruler-worship to recognize that calling the "authorities" isn't the smart thing to do. I doubt these same people would hesitate even an instant before doing you or I the same "favor".
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Odds and ends again
Odds and ends again
One way to know who the truly brainwashed among us are is to watch for the common "mating call" of the statist. It goes like this:
You will notice, if you are aware, that once a person has been this deeply brainwashed their ability to tell the difference between "society", civilization, and State is fatally compromised. So is the ability to see that there are plenty of ways to provide every service that is truly needed without relying on theft or coercion even a little bit.
________________________________
Live smart. Don't attract unnecessary attention to yourself. You are in enemy-occupied territory. Even if you still like the idea of a powerful, coercive government, that government does not like you.
Even if you think you need that government, you don't. But it does need you. Parasites can not live without a host. As long as you can be fooled into accepting your place as a living host for a deadly parasite it can continue to suck the life out of you. Whether you are aware of the reality or not.
Accept your true place as a sovereign individual with all your rights intact. Accept that those around you are the same, and that they possess the same rights in just as full-measure as you.
Accept that initiating force or sending others to do so in your place is never a valid choice. Doing so makes you the bad guy, no matter how strongly you want that to not be true. Reality is more powerful than your wishes.
________________________________
In the news: Once again, the impossible has happened. Some of you may not be aware, but murder is illegal in Albuquerque. But it happened. Twice in one house!
How can this be? I thought the answer to stopping everything bad was to make it "illegal". I guess guns should have been prohibited, too, so that a jealous madman, intent on killing, would have had to find a different outlet for his rage. More "laws" would have prevented this, right?
And, if you believe that, cut me in on that foreign lottery you just won (according to the emails).
________________________________
Don't forget my books. I even have a completely non-political one for your animal-loving friends and family members. I promise not to judge their life-choices.
One way to know who the truly brainwashed among us are is to watch for the common "mating call" of the statist. It goes like this:
"Stupid libertarian! You sit there and criticize the government, but
without it you wouldn't have the internet, or freedom of speech, or police
(promise?!) or fire protection, or roads, and your children would be stupid
because there would be no schools!"
You will notice, if you are aware, that once a person has been this deeply brainwashed their ability to tell the difference between "society", civilization, and State is fatally compromised. So is the ability to see that there are plenty of ways to provide every service that is truly needed without relying on theft or coercion even a little bit.
________________________________
Live smart. Don't attract unnecessary attention to yourself. You are in enemy-occupied territory. Even if you still like the idea of a powerful, coercive government, that government does not like you.
Even if you think you need that government, you don't. But it does need you. Parasites can not live without a host. As long as you can be fooled into accepting your place as a living host for a deadly parasite it can continue to suck the life out of you. Whether you are aware of the reality or not.
Accept your true place as a sovereign individual with all your rights intact. Accept that those around you are the same, and that they possess the same rights in just as full-measure as you.
Accept that initiating force or sending others to do so in your place is never a valid choice. Doing so makes you the bad guy, no matter how strongly you want that to not be true. Reality is more powerful than your wishes.
________________________________
In the news: Once again, the impossible has happened. Some of you may not be aware, but murder is illegal in Albuquerque. But it happened. Twice in one house!
How can this be? I thought the answer to stopping everything bad was to make it "illegal". I guess guns should have been prohibited, too, so that a jealous madman, intent on killing, would have had to find a different outlet for his rage. More "laws" would have prevented this, right?
And, if you believe that, cut me in on that foreign lottery you just won (according to the emails).
________________________________
Don't forget my books. I even have a completely non-political one for your animal-loving friends and family members. I promise not to judge their life-choices.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Spontaneous order
Spontaneous order
Spontaneous order is not "chaos". Instead, it is anarchy. Spontaneous order is what you get when there is no "control" over a situation beyond things (or people) acting according to their nature. It is what makes a snowflake always form with six sides, and what makes the Universe display other beautiful patterns and function as it does. It is also what would provide for peaceful and mutually beneficial interactions among free people if there were not the insane control-freaks always trying to impose their "better way" from afar.
As spontaneous order in nature gets studied more, and hopefully understood better, perhaps educated people will begin to understand what wise people have known all along: that left alone, things will generally work themselves out in a beneficial way. And if they don't, imposing control wouldn't have made the situation any better anyway.
_____________________
And, in ABQ news- An Albuquerque woman has been indicted on "tax evasion" charges. This is always so disgusting to me. That the government could pretend it is wrong to not pay extortion to a group of thieves wearing the silly hat of government is absurd. Government does not "need" your money to operate, since it can counterfeit all it wants. To threaten to kidnap this woman for up to nine years or to steal $30,000 more from her, at gunpoint, shows just who is committing the act of evil here, and it is NOT Angela Two Bulls. Each individual who sat on that grand jury should be ashamed enough to commit suicide.
Spontaneous order is not "chaos". Instead, it is anarchy. Spontaneous order is what you get when there is no "control" over a situation beyond things (or people) acting according to their nature. It is what makes a snowflake always form with six sides, and what makes the Universe display other beautiful patterns and function as it does. It is also what would provide for peaceful and mutually beneficial interactions among free people if there were not the insane control-freaks always trying to impose their "better way" from afar.
As spontaneous order in nature gets studied more, and hopefully understood better, perhaps educated people will begin to understand what wise people have known all along: that left alone, things will generally work themselves out in a beneficial way. And if they don't, imposing control wouldn't have made the situation any better anyway.
_____________________
And, in ABQ news- An Albuquerque woman has been indicted on "tax evasion" charges. This is always so disgusting to me. That the government could pretend it is wrong to not pay extortion to a group of thieves wearing the silly hat of government is absurd. Government does not "need" your money to operate, since it can counterfeit all it wants. To threaten to kidnap this woman for up to nine years or to steal $30,000 more from her, at gunpoint, shows just who is committing the act of evil here, and it is NOT Angela Two Bulls. Each individual who sat on that grand jury should be ashamed enough to commit suicide.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
No new cops?
No new cops?
The budget crisis has caused the Albuquerque Police Department to close* its LEO academy. So, no new ABQ LEOs. Good first step. Now, what would be the best next step? Remove "legal" prohibitions on self-defense and defense of property. Then fire the rest of the cops.
LEOs are just the collection arm of the city government anyway. Without them tasked with finding excuses to steal money and property on behalf of their masters, those masters will need to go out and find honest jobs.
LEOs also are "necessary" to maintain the myth of "chaos". They enforce "laws" that make aggression and theft safe for the bad guys so that the "crime" can be used as an excuse for the continuation of the failed status quo. The bitter (for them) truth is that without the "law" protecting the Rulers and the freelance thugs ("criminals") from facing the consequences of their poor career choices, they will either find honest ways to live, or they will die. Either way, it is very good news for the productive denizens of the area.
______________________________
*Government never "closes" anything permanently. A manufactured "outcry" will undoubtedly cause them to either "find" the money somewhere or hold some other program hostage until the "academy" is rescued from the trash heap of statist obsolescence. Just watch.
The budget crisis has caused the Albuquerque Police Department to close* its LEO academy. So, no new ABQ LEOs. Good first step. Now, what would be the best next step? Remove "legal" prohibitions on self-defense and defense of property. Then fire the rest of the cops.
LEOs are just the collection arm of the city government anyway. Without them tasked with finding excuses to steal money and property on behalf of their masters, those masters will need to go out and find honest jobs.
LEOs also are "necessary" to maintain the myth of "chaos". They enforce "laws" that make aggression and theft safe for the bad guys so that the "crime" can be used as an excuse for the continuation of the failed status quo. The bitter (for them) truth is that without the "law" protecting the Rulers and the freelance thugs ("criminals") from facing the consequences of their poor career choices, they will either find honest ways to live, or they will die. Either way, it is very good news for the productive denizens of the area.
______________________________
*Government never "closes" anything permanently. A manufactured "outcry" will undoubtedly cause them to either "find" the money somewhere or hold some other program hostage until the "academy" is rescued from the trash heap of statist obsolescence. Just watch.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Dialing '911'- Are you sure you want to take that risk?
Dialing '911'- Are you sure you want to take that risk?
Too many tragic events begin with a person in trouble, or someone acting on their behalf, picking up the phone and dialing "911". Then, into this already tense situation come armed agents of the state whose very job it is to find things to "arrest" people for. This is not a recipe for solving problems, but for manufacturing them. It complicates a situation. Too often the person in trouble, or a family member, ends up being attacked or killed by the responding cops.
There is a huge difference between calling 911 when you are being held hostage by a crazed lunatic and calling 911 because of a medical emergency or a fire. In the first instance it is probably not always the optimum solution to have cops show up; in the last two it can be positively disastrous.
There needs to be an alternative to 911 where cops are not sent by default. Calling 911 has become too dangerous, since there is no situation so bad it can't be made worse by adding a cop, and since LEOs now have the "us vs. them" attitude drilled into them during their training.
Calling 911 could be made safe again, if cops were only sent if the person didn't request they not be sent. Of course, this entirely reasonable request would be seen as an admission of guilt rather than a recognition of the dangers inherent in mixing guns and badges. Obviously this means that what is needed is a free market solution, not administered by the government in any way.
_______________________
In other news, just in case you think LEOs and their leash-holders are the "good guys"- Here is another location following the example of Albuquerque's scam to "legally" steal cars and extort money.
Too many tragic events begin with a person in trouble, or someone acting on their behalf, picking up the phone and dialing "911". Then, into this already tense situation come armed agents of the state whose very job it is to find things to "arrest" people for. This is not a recipe for solving problems, but for manufacturing them. It complicates a situation. Too often the person in trouble, or a family member, ends up being attacked or killed by the responding cops.
There is a huge difference between calling 911 when you are being held hostage by a crazed lunatic and calling 911 because of a medical emergency or a fire. In the first instance it is probably not always the optimum solution to have cops show up; in the last two it can be positively disastrous.
There needs to be an alternative to 911 where cops are not sent by default. Calling 911 has become too dangerous, since there is no situation so bad it can't be made worse by adding a cop, and since LEOs now have the "us vs. them" attitude drilled into them during their training.
Calling 911 could be made safe again, if cops were only sent if the person didn't request they not be sent. Of course, this entirely reasonable request would be seen as an admission of guilt rather than a recognition of the dangers inherent in mixing guns and badges. Obviously this means that what is needed is a free market solution, not administered by the government in any way.
_______________________
In other news, just in case you think LEOs and their leash-holders are the "good guys"- Here is another location following the example of Albuquerque's scam to "legally" steal cars and extort money.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Authoritarianism is the pits
Authoritarianism is the pits
Few people are a solid block of authoritarianism. Most are like a cherry pie of libertarianism with a few pits of authoritarianism hidden inside. There is no problem when interacting with them until you encounter these pits.
The pit may be "abortion", or welfare of some sort ("social security", "farm subsidies"), or it may be a desire for the state to impose religious "values" on those who do not share that religion. Some people are so full of pits that it is impossible to interact with them without the experience being a miserable encounter, and some people have such a small pit it may never be noticed unless you are really trying.
Part of life and self-responsibility should be about discovering your own pits and eliminating them, not about zealously defending your pits or adding more pits to your pie.
___________________________
In a completely unrelated news story, "fleeing" robbery suspects were shot at yesterday by an Albuquerque LEO. Now, I have no problem with anyone defending themselves from attack. Even LEOs and freelance aggressors still retain the right of self-defense. My skepticism comes from the claim that the "fleeing" suspects were trying to run over the LEO. It seems convenient and I have seen other cases where such a claim on the part of LEOs was completely fabricated to justify shooting. Remove the uniform and badge from the mix and would the shooting have been justified (according to the government) or would the shooter be facing charges? Excuse my lack of credulity where the narrative of the LEOs is concerned, but I have seen enough deception from "officials" to make me want proof before I accept their version of events. Maybe there is independent video of the shooting that will show what happened. Until then, I reserve judgment.
Few people are a solid block of authoritarianism. Most are like a cherry pie of libertarianism with a few pits of authoritarianism hidden inside. There is no problem when interacting with them until you encounter these pits.
The pit may be "abortion", or welfare of some sort ("social security", "farm subsidies"), or it may be a desire for the state to impose religious "values" on those who do not share that religion. Some people are so full of pits that it is impossible to interact with them without the experience being a miserable encounter, and some people have such a small pit it may never be noticed unless you are really trying.
Part of life and self-responsibility should be about discovering your own pits and eliminating them, not about zealously defending your pits or adding more pits to your pie.
___________________________
In a completely unrelated news story, "fleeing" robbery suspects were shot at yesterday by an Albuquerque LEO. Now, I have no problem with anyone defending themselves from attack. Even LEOs and freelance aggressors still retain the right of self-defense. My skepticism comes from the claim that the "fleeing" suspects were trying to run over the LEO. It seems convenient and I have seen other cases where such a claim on the part of LEOs was completely fabricated to justify shooting. Remove the uniform and badge from the mix and would the shooting have been justified (according to the government) or would the shooter be facing charges? Excuse my lack of credulity where the narrative of the LEOs is concerned, but I have seen enough deception from "officials" to make me want proof before I accept their version of events. Maybe there is independent video of the shooting that will show what happened. Until then, I reserve judgment.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Fighting to control the train's rudder
Fighting to control the train's rudder
Electoral politics is like fighting over who gets to hold the rudder of the train. The people who want to control the rudder, or who vigorously support the candidate they want controlling the rudder, are misguided at best.
If you are ever on a train which has a rudder you can be certain it is merely a distraction from the real business of running the train. Possibly for the purpose of keeping the well-meaning but ignorant "citizens" busy and out of the way. The fact is that the real focus needs to be on who built the tracks, where those tracks are leading, and who's at the throttle. But those things are not ever up for a vote. This is not an oversight, but is by design.
Bureaucrats, many politicians, favored corporations, and certain powerful insiders are happy that so many are fighting for control of the rudder. It ensures that no real change will ever take place to threaten the status quo.
So don't worry about the rudder, but don't condemn those who wish to hold it for the feeling of control it gives them. If possible point out the truth about the rudder but don't be surprised when people accuse you of not caring that the train is headed for a ravine because you don't share their concern for the rudder. It is a delusion that is deeply seated in a great many people and a lot of effort is expended keeping that delusion in place.
Next time it is election day, please keep this in mind and don't allow yourself to be distracted with busy-work that does nothing for Liberty.
*********************
Electoral politics is like fighting over who gets to hold the rudder of the train. The people who want to control the rudder, or who vigorously support the candidate they want controlling the rudder, are misguided at best.
If you are ever on a train which has a rudder you can be certain it is merely a distraction from the real business of running the train. Possibly for the purpose of keeping the well-meaning but ignorant "citizens" busy and out of the way. The fact is that the real focus needs to be on who built the tracks, where those tracks are leading, and who's at the throttle. But those things are not ever up for a vote. This is not an oversight, but is by design.
Bureaucrats, many politicians, favored corporations, and certain powerful insiders are happy that so many are fighting for control of the rudder. It ensures that no real change will ever take place to threaten the status quo.
So don't worry about the rudder, but don't condemn those who wish to hold it for the feeling of control it gives them. If possible point out the truth about the rudder but don't be surprised when people accuse you of not caring that the train is headed for a ravine because you don't share their concern for the rudder. It is a delusion that is deeply seated in a great many people and a lot of effort is expended keeping that delusion in place.
Next time it is election day, please keep this in mind and don't allow yourself to be distracted with busy-work that does nothing for Liberty.
*********************
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
'Only Ones' hate competition
'Only Ones' hate competition
An Albuquerque man learned a valuable lesson: Don't be a fake cop because the "real" cops don't like the competition.
He got caught when he ordered police equipment and then didn't pay for it. This is of no ethical difference than what "real cops" do, except they (or their departments) use stolen money to "pay for" the tools they use. It simply moves the theft to a slightly different step of the process. How is that "better"?
The man is a thief, that much seems clear, however I hear no implications that he kicked in any doors in the middle of the night, nor that he electrocuted anyone for not showing him "proper respect", nor that he extorted any money from people for consensual acts. I have heard nothing to indicate that he wants people to be shot dead for exercising their basic human rights. All in all, that puts him in a position of ethical superiority to most LEOs. So, who is the real danger to "public safety"?
The official LEOs have a nice racket going on. They get to spend money that is not theirs to spend, on tools that are forbidden to the rest of us, and then they get to be the Only Ones and have fun enforcing "laws" no decent person would ever consider legitimate. "Laws" that violate their oath and violate their one true duty to protect the rights of the individual, whether the threat comes from a freelance thug or from government. There is no other reason to permit a "police department" to exist.
What I completely fail to understand is why anyone would choose to pretend to be a LEO. Were all the prime gang-wannabe positions already filled?
_______________________
On a closely related subject: Learn to Identify the Humans, by Iloilo Jones.
*********************
An Albuquerque man learned a valuable lesson: Don't be a fake cop because the "real" cops don't like the competition.
He got caught when he ordered police equipment and then didn't pay for it. This is of no ethical difference than what "real cops" do, except they (or their departments) use stolen money to "pay for" the tools they use. It simply moves the theft to a slightly different step of the process. How is that "better"?
The man is a thief, that much seems clear, however I hear no implications that he kicked in any doors in the middle of the night, nor that he electrocuted anyone for not showing him "proper respect", nor that he extorted any money from people for consensual acts. I have heard nothing to indicate that he wants people to be shot dead for exercising their basic human rights. All in all, that puts him in a position of ethical superiority to most LEOs. So, who is the real danger to "public safety"?
The official LEOs have a nice racket going on. They get to spend money that is not theirs to spend, on tools that are forbidden to the rest of us, and then they get to be the Only Ones and have fun enforcing "laws" no decent person would ever consider legitimate. "Laws" that violate their oath and violate their one true duty to protect the rights of the individual, whether the threat comes from a freelance thug or from government. There is no other reason to permit a "police department" to exist.
What I completely fail to understand is why anyone would choose to pretend to be a LEO. Were all the prime gang-wannabe positions already filled?
_______________________
On a closely related subject: Learn to Identify the Humans, by Iloilo Jones.
*********************
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Government protects its own
Government protects its own
Do you need more proof that "some animals are more 'equal' than others"? Look no further than passed-out-drunk Albuquerque LEO, Sergeant Richard Guzman.
I have mentioned his glowing example a couple of other times, even going so far as to mention that by pulling over and trying to "sleep it off", he did the responsible thing (which is "illegal" at this time). Would he have arrested a non-badged person for doing as he did? I'd be willing to bet real money (silver or gold) that he would have without a second thought.
Now a judge has once again shown that a conflict of interest prevents justice from happening under government-owned courts. Judge Sandra Engle denied the motion for Guzman to be fingerprinted and "booked", calling it "premature."
Would you or I get that kind of professional courtesy? Don't count on it.
***********************
Do you need more proof that "some animals are more 'equal' than others"? Look no further than passed-out-drunk Albuquerque LEO, Sergeant Richard Guzman.
I have mentioned his glowing example a couple of other times, even going so far as to mention that by pulling over and trying to "sleep it off", he did the responsible thing (which is "illegal" at this time). Would he have arrested a non-badged person for doing as he did? I'd be willing to bet real money (silver or gold) that he would have without a second thought.
Now a judge has once again shown that a conflict of interest prevents justice from happening under government-owned courts. Judge Sandra Engle denied the motion for Guzman to be fingerprinted and "booked", calling it "premature."
Would you or I get that kind of professional courtesy? Don't count on it.
***********************
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Seasteading: Let's get to it
Seasteading: Let's get to it
Seasteading- it is already being done by the rich. Let's look at ways it might work for the rest of us. Yes, the "high seas" are a lot different from the high desert around Albuquerque, but a change of scenery isn't always bad. This is just my own brainstorming session, and certainly not the only possible way the project could play out.
First of all, I'm sure there either are some of those gigantic cruise ships for sale somewhere, or soon will be. A huge container ship might even be purchased and retrofitted for the purpose. Either way, it is not impossible to do, and becomes more imperative to try with each new governmental violation of basic human rights.
The only "law" on a "libertarian seastead" would be the Zero Aggression Principle and the related "principle of zero initiated deception". Nothing else would be "enforceable" or expected, because there would be no "authorities". Each person would "enforce" a respect for rights and liberty in their own sphere. Nothing other than mercy would protect bad people from the consequences of their aggression, theft, and fraud. In an absence of government, being an aggressor or thief would be a very, very foolish choice.
In my thought experiment, it wouldn't necessarily "cost" you to live aboard unless you were among the "idle rich", since you would probably run your own business of some sort, rather than having the on-board shops and restaurants owned by the ship's owners (whoever they might be). Nothing would prevent or stifle competition among the residents. If there is already a barber shop, open a better or cheaper one.
Each part of the ship would be private property, including "common areas". How would that work? I'm not sure. Perhaps each person would own the hallway in front of their quarters, along with the privileges and liabilities that go along with it, unless they choose to sell it to someone else. The captain and crew would be employees. The ship itself, such as the engines and hull... who would "own" it? Maybe the residents could each own specific parts or, if people really think it works well (I don't) they might own "shares" in the things such as the engines. How would fuel and maintenance be financed? There could not be "taxation" in the traditional sense, since theft is forbidden for everyone. Maybe "utilities" and services would include the cost of running the ship. Most businesses or residents might be willing to donate money toward fuel and maintenance since that would make it much easier to get goods and travel where they want to go. There would undoubtedly be "free riders", but that is not a real drawback unless you want it to be.
If wealthy people want a luxurious suite, they have that option. There would still be plenty of room for suburbs and even "slums". There might even be "tent cities" below deck. People who didn't have much need somewhere to start, and someone might be willing to rent out large chambers for such a purpose.
There would be no "official currency"; people would be free to offer payment, and accept payment, in whatever form they preferred. If they choose to do business off-ship, it might be good to have things that are accepted in port, as well. Private banks on-board might provide a valuable service in this case.
True medical freedom could be found in such a situation, unlike anywhere on land under government "supervision". Even people who might not agree with the operating principles of the community might seek treatment from the doctors on board, and provide an infusion of outside wealth.
Food could be grown on board and harvested from the ocean. Metals might even be separated from seawater or collected from the ocean floor by entrepreneurs on the seastead. And, of course, sunken ships could be found and "mined" as well.
Security would be up to the individual. If you wish to have a metal detector at the door of your business, that is up to you, but don't count on getting many customers. If a port has a prohibition on personal weaponry, then only those willing to take the risk would disembark. Perhaps if the ports did not wish to have an armed ship even docked, there could be shuttles that would make the run to and from the ship, to bring goods and passengers.
I think a gunsmith (or three) would find it a very liberating environment. The next John Moses Browning might find this the perfect situation to experiment without an ATF agent or other parasitical vermin breathing down his neck. Real weapon innovation could once again be tried. Mourn any pirates who try to take over or loot this ship.
To be honest, I have lots more thoughts on this, but this column is getting too long already. Perhaps there may be a "part two", but regardless, let your own imagination run wild. Every "problem" has a solution that does not require coercion. It is just a matter of thinking of it.
Seasteading- it is already being done by the rich. Let's look at ways it might work for the rest of us. Yes, the "high seas" are a lot different from the high desert around Albuquerque, but a change of scenery isn't always bad. This is just my own brainstorming session, and certainly not the only possible way the project could play out.
First of all, I'm sure there either are some of those gigantic cruise ships for sale somewhere, or soon will be. A huge container ship might even be purchased and retrofitted for the purpose. Either way, it is not impossible to do, and becomes more imperative to try with each new governmental violation of basic human rights.
The only "law" on a "libertarian seastead" would be the Zero Aggression Principle and the related "principle of zero initiated deception". Nothing else would be "enforceable" or expected, because there would be no "authorities". Each person would "enforce" a respect for rights and liberty in their own sphere. Nothing other than mercy would protect bad people from the consequences of their aggression, theft, and fraud. In an absence of government, being an aggressor or thief would be a very, very foolish choice.
In my thought experiment, it wouldn't necessarily "cost" you to live aboard unless you were among the "idle rich", since you would probably run your own business of some sort, rather than having the on-board shops and restaurants owned by the ship's owners (whoever they might be). Nothing would prevent or stifle competition among the residents. If there is already a barber shop, open a better or cheaper one.
Each part of the ship would be private property, including "common areas". How would that work? I'm not sure. Perhaps each person would own the hallway in front of their quarters, along with the privileges and liabilities that go along with it, unless they choose to sell it to someone else. The captain and crew would be employees. The ship itself, such as the engines and hull... who would "own" it? Maybe the residents could each own specific parts or, if people really think it works well (I don't) they might own "shares" in the things such as the engines. How would fuel and maintenance be financed? There could not be "taxation" in the traditional sense, since theft is forbidden for everyone. Maybe "utilities" and services would include the cost of running the ship. Most businesses or residents might be willing to donate money toward fuel and maintenance since that would make it much easier to get goods and travel where they want to go. There would undoubtedly be "free riders", but that is not a real drawback unless you want it to be.
If wealthy people want a luxurious suite, they have that option. There would still be plenty of room for suburbs and even "slums". There might even be "tent cities" below deck. People who didn't have much need somewhere to start, and someone might be willing to rent out large chambers for such a purpose.
There would be no "official currency"; people would be free to offer payment, and accept payment, in whatever form they preferred. If they choose to do business off-ship, it might be good to have things that are accepted in port, as well. Private banks on-board might provide a valuable service in this case.
True medical freedom could be found in such a situation, unlike anywhere on land under government "supervision". Even people who might not agree with the operating principles of the community might seek treatment from the doctors on board, and provide an infusion of outside wealth.
Food could be grown on board and harvested from the ocean. Metals might even be separated from seawater or collected from the ocean floor by entrepreneurs on the seastead. And, of course, sunken ships could be found and "mined" as well.
Security would be up to the individual. If you wish to have a metal detector at the door of your business, that is up to you, but don't count on getting many customers. If a port has a prohibition on personal weaponry, then only those willing to take the risk would disembark. Perhaps if the ports did not wish to have an armed ship even docked, there could be shuttles that would make the run to and from the ship, to bring goods and passengers.
I think a gunsmith (or three) would find it a very liberating environment. The next John Moses Browning might find this the perfect situation to experiment without an ATF agent or other parasitical vermin breathing down his neck. Real weapon innovation could once again be tried. Mourn any pirates who try to take over or loot this ship.
To be honest, I have lots more thoughts on this, but this column is getting too long already. Perhaps there may be a "part two", but regardless, let your own imagination run wild. Every "problem" has a solution that does not require coercion. It is just a matter of thinking of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)