I love liberty

I love liberty

Why do I care about liberty? Why do I want it for you just as much as I want it for myself? Because I LOVE liberty, not only for myself, but for everyone. Even if it is inconvenient to me for others to have it. I would rather see my worst enemy living a life of liberty than being "controlled" by the state. Is this crazy? No. It is consistent.

Anything that impacts my enemy's liberty will be just as bad for mine in the long-run. I'd prefer to take my chances in a free society, taking responsibility for my own life, than have empty guarantees from a government that "only" demands I give up "little bits" of my liberty that I'll "probably never miss" anyway.

I want everyone to be able to enjoy liberty- the freedom to exercise all their rights- to the fullest extent they can. Right up to where their rights end and someone else's identical individual rights begin. Think of the potential society is destroying by placing thugs with government guns and a "legal" monopoly to use them, at all the gateways that lead to innovation and real progress.
Liberty leads to better life. Not safer in every case, but better. Fuller, richer, more meaningful. Wider horizons and brighter colors. The sky doesn't even begin to be the limit.

If that life isn't for you, what are your options? Where will you go in a free society? Liberty even makes room for those too afraid of the real world to live "free"; they can choose to have their choices limited by a voluntary arrangement. A "daycare" for people who refuse to accept their responsibilities. You can avoid all contact with the rest of the world so you can be just as safe as you are now if that is your choice. Even safer, in all probability, since you and all your neighbors will be scanned, tagged, watched, and tracked from the moment you sign up.

That's not for me, but it is not my place to tell you how to live. This is why I write about liberty- complete, whole, full liberty. Exceptions destroy liberty for everyone, one piece at a time. I don't buy into the watered-down versions extolled by "conservatives", "progressives", or even some "Libertarians". Liberty is liberty, and if weakened or restricted in any way, it is no longer liberty, but something smaller. Less.

If you are afraid of liberty, or if you don't like it fully-expressed for some reason, that is your business. But don't pretend you are advocating liberty or libertarianism while making excuses for placing limits on the liberty of others. It just doesn't work that way. Liberty is an all-or-nothing proposition. Ending only where you have no right to tread.
___________________________

In Albuquerque news, some tennis players have let their bladders do the talking. Unhappy that Sister Cities Park has no restroom facilities, they allowed themselves get "caught" urinating at the park anyway, to bring attention to their distress. The city spokescritter says they didn't have to go this far; all they had to do was call. Why do I suspect that had already been tried without result?

Just another demonstration that governments can't manage what they claim to own. A privately-owned park would have probably addressed the issue before it came to this. I'm also surprised the urinators were not charged with sex crimes and placed on the "sex offender" list. It has happened before.

Examiner advice request

My Examiner columns have been doing very poorly recently. I'm getting only a fraction of the page views I was getting just a few weeks ago (not counting the "troll attention"). That impacts my motivation to invest the time to write, which may cause a self-destructive feedback loop.

So, I need to ask if I am getting off-track or not touching on subjects that are interesting. Any suggestions (that will keep me within the guidelines Examiner.com) will be considered.

Mayor Berry uses weasel-words to straddle the fence

Mayor Berry uses weasel-words to straddle the fence

Albuquerque Mayor Berry recently said the "immigrant community" (whatever that may be) is welcome in Albuquerque, but criminals are not. So, let's look at that statement and see what he, as a politician, actually means.

Since "criminals" are simply people who do things the government doesn't approve of, whether the things are actually bad (harmful to others; a violation of another person's identical rights) or not, the statement is empty rhetoric of the sort frequently spoken by parasites. Of course a government tool would not want people around who do things that the government doesn't approve of; they don't fit the plan. One of those things is moving to a new place without "official government permission". He can therefore justify, to himself and others without an ethical foundation, kidnapping people his LEOs find who are lacking permission papers.

Now, supposedly this new policy only affects those who have already been kidnapped in connection with other "crimes", but how many government programs ever fail to grow in breadth and depth? How many of these "crimes" involve actions that are within a person's rights to do?

If a person attacks, defrauds, or steals from anyone, they are subject to self-defensive actions, up to and including extermination when caught in the act. Get government out of the way of that basic right and the "illegal immigrant" problem, as well as most other societal problems, will evaporate faster than you can close and raze the now-obsolete government facilities. Where a person was born, or what papers he possesses, has nothing to do with it. And that is why government-lovers will never willingly recognize this basic human right. It takes away their power and prestige and exposes them as the worst of the species, subject to the same self-defensive consequences. The hand-wringing over "illegal immigrants" is smoke and mirrors to keep you from thinking about the real issue. Real liberty.

Albuquerque woman fears for her daughter's safety

Albuquerque woman fears for her daughter's safety

An Albuquerque woman is afraid for the safety of her daughter. She fears the outcome of a murder trial. Her case may be unusual, due to her making really bad choices of acquaintances in the past, but all parents should keep the safety of their children in mind at all times, extraordinary circumstances or not.

I doubt this anonymous woman will read these words, but if she does, or if a caring friend of hers happens across this column, I have some advice for her.

It is not the government's responsibility, not even a police officer's responsibility, to protect you or your children. Court cases prove this fact over and over. Relying on any employee of any government to protect you will leave you vulnerable. Or dead. If you have reason to believe your child may be in danger, and you do not take action personally and with grave determination, how will you feel if something happens? Will you be satisfied if the attacker is arrested? Me neither.

Your child's safety is your responsibility. If you think your child is in danger from anyone, and even if you have no reason to suspect any unusual danger, it is your responsibility to make sure you are prepared, physically and mentally, to protect your child.

This means get the most effective self-defense tool available no matter what stands in your way, learn how to use it properly, make up your mind that you will not hesitate to strike back with it in a crisis, and make sure you never leave it behind for any reason. Any reason. If a particular place does not trust you with the best tools for self defense, you are wise to not go there. Period.

This responsibility means teaching your child developmentally-appropriate self-defensive lessons. Lessons they will need even if your fears turn out to be groundless.

This responsibility even means moving to a new area if you find it impossible to protect your child adequately where you currently reside. No price or inconvenience is "too high". Regrets can never be fixed; only avoided. Make up your mind now, before it is too late.

'Right and wrong' vs. the majority of life

'Right and wrong' vs. the majority of life

There is right and there is wrong; there are no "gray areas". However there are a lot of areas, the vast majority of our lives, in fact, that have nothing whatsoever to do with right or wrong. They lie completely outside the rather small realm of "right or wrong".

It is not "right" or "wrong" to walk across the room, nor to smoke some pot, nor to read a book.
If you are doing one of those things instead of something you should be doing, such as rescuing an innocent person in the room with you who is being attacked by killer chihuahuas, then you are doing wrong, but not because of what you are doing; rather because of what you are not doing.

The mere fact that you are "breaking the law" is no indication of whether you are in the right or in the wrong. That depends completely on whether the "law" you are violating has a foundation in prohibiting aggression, theft, or fraud. It is wrong to do those things regardless of the "legal" landscape, because as long as you are not initiating force, theft, or fraud the "law" has no legitimate say in what you do. For "the law" to pretend it does makes "the law", and those who advocate, write, and enforce it, the ones in the wrong. Are you, by your actions, harming any innocent person in any real way?

I am amazed by how many people don't get this. It is not wrong to be "dogmatic" and recognize this truth. In fact, to act as though this truth is unimportant can contribute to you acting in ways that are wrong. It can even lead you to support acts and policies that are evil.

Most people who argue for "gray areas" seem to do so due to a desire to do wrong, or support it, without feeling bad about it. They want to approve of torture, theft, aggression, and countless other things that an admission of "right or wrong" would put them unequivocally on the wrong side of.

Standing up for ALL rights for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, at ALL times is right. Finding ways to weasel your way into imaginary "gray areas" exposes your failure to be consistent and puts you in danger of being wrong.
___________________

The Albuquerque bank robber (oops- "alleged bank robber") who crashed his car into a vehicle, killing its two occupants, while fleeing pursuing LEOs, has been charged with robbing the bank and killing the two women. And the LEOs, without whose "public-endangering" pursuit the crash likely would never have happened, escape consequences. "Public safety", in a pig's eye. With "help" like this, we are better off on our own.

Could you become an 'illegal immigrant'?

Could you become an 'illegal immigrant'?

If roles were reversed, and I lived in a "country" where economic and individual liberty had been almost completely destroyed by thugs (both governmental and governmentally-enabled), either with the approval of the "voters" or by rigging the results of elections to give the appearance of voter approval, and there were a nearby "country" where life had the potential to be a little better, would I make a run for the border? You bet I would. What if I didn't have the permission of either country's government to migrate? That wouldn't even be a consideration.

If I did manage to escape to a better life, would I immediately turn my back on the culture I had grown up with? Not a chance. There is nothing wrong with "my culture", there is a problem with the controlling and oppressive government that made me want to escape. While I would attempt to learn the "native language" enough to at least be able to function, I would naturally seek out fellow migrants who spoke the language I was familiar with. People seek out those they can relate to, and who treat them nicely. I don't blame anyone else for doing the same thing I would do in their shoes.

Being the person I am, with the principles I possess, I would not collect welfare, even if it were offered in the new "country". Yet, if I had been raised in a "country" where "wealth redistribution"- theft- was the norm, I might not understand the wrongness of what I was doing. And if there were "natives" all around me living off the stolen property of their fellow "citizens" the message about right and wrong would undoubtedly get even more muddled.

Being me, I would not initiate force or fraud on the "natives", even while I watched them attack and rob one another. I would not be to blame for any of the other migrants who committed acts of this type, no matter whether their skin-tone and preferred language were the same as mine or not. I would retain the right to defend myself from immigrant-bashing violence, even knowing it would make me more unpopular to do so.

Do you believe this scenario could never happen? The reality is that with the course the US government seems determined to stay on, roles might really end up reversed for you and me. Sooner than we might imagine. Remember the Golden Rule, and it's more specific cousin: The Zero Aggression Principle. That is the only way to a civilized life.

ABQ Public Schools and budget problems

ABQ Public Schools and budget problems

Albuquerque Public (sic) Schools and the Albuquerque Teachers (sic) Federation are trying to bargain between themselves in this time of economic hardship. Not enough loot to go around once all the bureaucrats skim their share, I suppose. Yet, the solution is staring them in the face: close the "public" schools and let the teachers find jobs that do not rely upon stolen money. If they know how to actually teach, their skills would be in high demand in a free society.

Government schooling is not about education, but about indoctrinating young people into believing in the status quo. It trains young minds to accept the official lie that coercion and theft are OK as long as the perpetrators wear the silly hat of government. It brainwashes young people with nationalistic nonsense, nonsense that may have been sort of true at one time, but as soon as government became the greatest threat to individual liberty, any truth to that notion that may have once existed was crushed by the new reality. And that moment came as soon as the Constitution was written.

Government schooling is also about abdicating the parental responsibility to raise and educate the children you produce. It is designed for babysitting and keeping young people out from under foot, rather than immersing them in the world of real life and responsible people.

It trains the kids to live by the whims of the bells, and by the rules of people who only want them to sit down and shut up. I realize real teachers are not like this, but too few real teachers are employed in government schools to offset the tragic damage done by the others.
Government schools, and any private schools based on the same template, are bad for kids and bad for the future of civilization.

Education is much too important to leave to government. Separate school and State.



****************

Liberty is always right

Liberty is always right

Respect for individual liberty, also known as "libertarianism" or "anarchism" is always right, whether you or I have already grasped all the implications completely or not. In the cases where I haven't "grasped it all", if those cases exist, give me time and I hope I come to understand the parts I am missing. If I am not fully "there" yet, it is not the fault of the philosophy, but of me.

Every argument against self-ownership or self-determination ("anarchy") falls apart when examined closely enough. I have learned enough to realize that justifications for coercion are always based upon false notions and deluded beliefs. Always. Even if I don't know what those faulty foundations are just yet, others have examined that very issue before me and have rooted out the flaws. And once again, justifications for externally-imposed coercive government, even your favorite brand, fail right before your very eyes.

However, I also have learned enough to see that those who staunchly refuse to admit this can not be "convinced". They have too much time, and in some cases, blood, invested in "the system" to be able to admit they have wasted their lives and also admit they have (often) demanded that others waste their own lives in "service" of flawed ideals. Or even evil.

Time after time, debates with those who still cling to some form of collectivism or socialism allow me the chance to examine my own position. All humans are subject to confirmation bias, but I seriously try very hard to examine the other person's position to see if I am off-base somewhere. And admit it if I am. So far the only times I have found my position to be flawed was when I still held on to some form of collectivism. Those cases are getting mighty rare now.
____________________________

"Government-owned" roads continue to be a stupid idea, as evinced by an inter-thief fight over who's to blame for an accident on an Albuquerque road. Was the rider (the only person apparently not being blamed by the aforementioned thieves) at fault, or is the road dangerous? If the road is dangerous can the injured rider sue the "owner", and if he wins, be paid restitution directly out of the guilty owner's pockets? In turf wars like this, "taxpayers" always lose.

What is to blame for 'law pollution'?

What is to blame for 'law pollution'?

I have rarely done this, but there is a blog entry by Claire Wolfe that is so good, I'm going to give you a taste and then send you there to read the rest.

The menace of “do somethingness"

You know how people are always trying to find solutions to
gigantic problems, and (because their only tool is government), making a worse
mess of everything? Blame “do somethingness.” If we could only end the “do
something” plague, clever, independent people might actually set about coming up
with real solutions to real-world messes. ...Read the rest...

Wasn't that wonderful? Spread it around to "those who don't get it", but who might someday.



*************************

Torture erases the difference between sides

Torture erases the difference between sides

Someone sent me a "joke" about torture that supposedly relates a minor Australian politician's statements about torture being a good thing, and giving the torturer flippant instructions, if it "will save just one Australian life". I find it disgusting. I'm not sure how anyone can think this subject is amusing.

If you are a torturer, or if you approve of torture under any circumstances, you are just as bad as that which you are supposedly opposing. The only thing that differentiates the "good guys" from the bad guys is a little thing called "the initiation of force". You cross that line and you are a bad guy, you have become evil, even if your enemy is also a bad guy. That's the odd thing about good and evil: two "evils" very often do fight one another and both can remain evil. Good and evil can also fight one another, of course; and two "goods" can not fight without at least one of them becoming evil. There is at least one evildoer in every fight. Don't embrace torture or you ensure that you are one of them.

If you did not use your force to stop an attack in progress, then you initiated the force. Even if you caught your prisoner "in the act", once you have ended his act of aggression you have lost your right to use further force against him.

Torture is always wrong. Those who justify, support, advocate, or use it have lost the high ground and are no better than any other terrorist thug. (On the other hand, catch a person in the act of attacking the innocent and you have free rein to stop the attack with anything up to and including deadly force.)

Don't try to call torture by any euphemisms, either. If you don't want someone doing it to your son or daughter, even if they are suspected of a "crime", then it is torture. Just like " water-boarding" or any of the other Guantanamo methods.

I do not applaud torture from anyone, nor for any reason. As with everything else in life, if you think the only solution is a violation of basic rights, you haven't examined the situation carefully enough. Plus, I doubt it even "works" (although, it is still wrong even if it does "work"). If I were being tortured, would I give truthful information, or would I say whatever I thought the torturer wanted to hear to get the torture to stop? You better believe I would lie if that's what I thought it took, especially if I didn't really have the information that was being sought.

Now, would I torture someone who had harmed or was threatening to harm one of my children? I don't know. If I did, I would still be wrong and would be subject to all the consequences of my actions. If it was worth it to me to commit wrong, I had better accept those consequences. I have no right to initiate force against another person for any reason. No. Right.

_______________________________

Government masquerading as the solution and causing more problems. The story gets awfully old, but people don't seem to learn the lesson.

Leo's Lounge in Albuquerque is being forcibly closed by the city. A "fire code violation" is the official justification, but the inspectors would have found something- anything- no matter what. I guarantee it.

The city has had problems with Leo's Lounge in the past. It seems it had been ordered to enforce a dress code (who was offended and why couldn't they go elsewhere? Idiots!) and increase security earlier this year, and now its own "security" has choked and beaten a customer into unconsciousness. So the wise city pinheads, seeing the results of their meddling, are now forcing the business to close.

If the security guy attacked an innocent person, let him reap the consequences. If anyone helped him do it, let the burden also be theirs. Would this guy have even been working at the lounge had the city not ordered the lounge to increase security?

"Problem bar"? If you ask me, the people of ABQ should shut down the problem government. That's where the real trouble lies.

Innocent - the definition

A person is "innocent" if they do not deserve to be harmed right now; at this moment.

The only reason anyone would deserve to be harmed at any time is if they are in the process of attacking, robbing, or defrauding an innocent person- violating life, liberty, or property

Everyone is innocent sometimes, and no one is innocent all the time. If you are initiating force or using coercion you are not innocent.

In my defense

I expect the cops to come kick in my door any minute now. What was my offense?

Let me start at the beginning. I ride my bike on almost all my local in-town trips. A few days ago, on my journey to the post office to pick up my mail, a dachshund ran out into the street to attack me. I pedalled faster and still wasn't able to outrun him. I couldn't believe tiny legs could move that fast, but then, I'm not a racer.

Today as I passed the same house (on the opposite side of the street), he ran out to get me again. I hollered "No! Go away! No!" and he ignored me. I kicked at him and my foot hit him in the face. He yelped slightly. The dog broke off the attack and ran home. The dog's owner watched all this in silence from his porch. Never scolding the dog or calling it off.

I was not trespassing. I was not trying to antagonize the dog in any way. I was simply going about my business. I tried to scold the dog into leaving me alone. Yet, I am sure the owner saw my kick in self defense as an attack on his precious little doggy.

Last summer a local weimaraner came after me as my daughter and I rode past another house. That dog bit me on the leg, but I just kept pedaling harder to keep my daughter out of harm's way (she was in a trailer behind my bike). A few days later the weimaraner's owners were in the yard so I told them about the bite. They were less than concerned. They are lucky I am not a believer in using government force.

People who do not control their dogs do not love their dogs.

Albuquerque to follow in Arizona's missteps?

Albuquerque to follow in Arizona's missteps?

"Immigration reform". It was wrong of Arizona to do it. It will be wrong of Albuquerque or New Mexico to do it. It is wrong and unconstitutional, which means illegal, for the federal government to do it. Read the Constitution if you don't believe me, and show me where immigration control is specifically authorized. Don't bother trying to blame "general welfare" or the little "slave importation" blurb in (Article 1, Section 9) that is left to the states, either.

Just as you or I are not subject to the "laws" of Mexico, Canada, or Australia, neither are the people claimed by those or any other governments subject to the laws of the US government. For that matter, any "law" that attempts to regulate, prohibit, or control anything other than actual aggression, theft, or fraud is not a real law. It is a counterfeit "law" which has no legitimacy and is not binding.

It is not about where a person was born or where you think he "belongs". It is not about any of the side issues that are the frequent justifications for these liberty-killing policies. And wrong is wrong, no matter who does it- "illegal" or "citizen" makes not a bit of difference.

If you are concerned about people trespassing on your property, deal with the trespassers. Form posses; use remote cameras; build machine gun-wielding robots to defend your own property, but do not do any trespassing yourself while riding fence lines. If you do, the exact same rules apply to you as to any other trespasser, and you don't want to forget that fact. Remember, if you own property you can set the rules for people entering your property, but you have absolutely no say on your neighbor's rules, and whom they may allow or forbid on their property.

Aggression and theft are wrong no matter who is committing them. It is no more wrong for an independent migrant to kill or rob than it is for a "citizen" of the US, or for a LEO or federal agent, to kill or rob. Focus on the problem, the aggression or theft, not on people you wish to find a reason to hate or fear.

Don't forget that the stupid and evil Drug War- Prohibition, Part 2- is the main cause of the border violence. Government-caused problems can only be solved by getting government completely out of the picture, not by giving government more power.

Cop cars, and the costs of taking them home

Cop cars, and the costs of taking them home

I'm not talking about the costs if you or I decided, on the spur of the moment, to take a cop car home with us. Even though we do own them. I'm talking about a diversionary debate a government has dreamed up.

The Albuquerque city council is looking into the costs associated with APD officers who drive their police cars to and from work. And well they should. Wear and tear on the vehicles costs "taxpayers' money".

However, whether the LEOs take their official "lighted extortion units" home with them, or drive their personal vehicles to work and back, the money to pay all those costs still comes from the same place: your pocket.

You do realize that any money a "public employee" spends was originally taken out of the market in order to pay his or her salary. Right? That money wasn't earned through voluntary trade; it was coercively confiscated through "taxation", fees, licenses, fines and other governmental methods of theft. That means even if those cops are using "their own" cars, and paying for "their own" fuel, ultimately the money was taken from you. That being the case, you have a right to say how and where your money is being spent. If those who are on the dole don't like it, they can always get an honest job.

Now, if you like having your money taken this way, that is your business. Throw all your own money away in whatever way you like. Just don't demand that everyone else do the same, and then cheer when people are killed for wanting to keep their own personal property. That's not nice or honest.

Remember: anything worth doing can be done voluntarily. Without relying on coercion and force. Without adopting gangland tactics. Without needing an "Only One" class.

Trade deficits- not just irrelevant, but completely imaginary

Trade deficits- not just irrelevant, but completely imaginary

I was once again watching John Stossel's show. This latest episode was on "free trade", and talked a lot about the myth of "trade deficits" being a bad thing. Yet, the show missed the biggest, and (to me) most obvious point.

Stossel was very good at defending free trade, and exposed Lou Dobbs as a source of a lot of hot air without a foundation. But, one thing Stossel didn't point out is that there can be no such thing as a "trade deficit". Maybe he has bought into the myth, just a little, himself. Maybe he hasn't thought this through, yet. The truth is there can be trade, or there can be theft. The component that makes the distinction, by its presence or absence, is coercion.

The example that is much overused in regard to "trade deficits" is China. Chinese manufacturers make stuff, cheap, and sell it to customers in America. And we customers pay them for it. No one forces us to buy any one thing in particular. Even government has so far failed in this area. When we give a Chinese manufacturer dollars, we have made an even trade. Dollars for products. There is no deficit. Unless a government or mugger gets involved and takes your property (products or dollars) and gives nothing (or too little) in return, the trade is always an even one.

That is, unless you claim that the money traded for the products is worth more than the product you got in return, in which case you are an idiot to agree to the trade. Personally, as an individual. Or unless you wish to admit that US dollars are worthless (or worth-less), in which case the Chinese company got ripped off, not you. You have no authority, nor enough wisdom, to judge another person's trade. What makes sense to them may seem one-sided to you. That is not for you to judge.

If you are mad that "PlastiCrap World" sells cheap Chinese products, don't buy them. Pay more and get a better item instead, either from the same store or from a competitor. Or get what you want from a yard sale or flea market. Or design and build your own. I do all the above, and so can you. Plus, sometimes I buy the "cheap junk" because it suits my needs at the price I am willing to pay at the time. Once again: voluntary trade; no deficit.

The whole myth of "trade deficits" is just an excuse to tell you who you can trade with, and under what conditions. It also always funnels some money into thieving governmental hands. This myth is an authoritarian power-grab and is bad for liberty and good for coercive government.
_______________________

Albuquerque "Public" Schools (government indoctrination camps) superintendent Brooks warns students that they can only voice their opinions as long as they do so in a way he approves (and he doesn't have to listen), and reminds them that they are prisoners and can't leave just because they want to. Of course, he uses more dishonest words to say this, but the meaning is clear.

Education is much too important to leave to government and self-serving bureaucrats like Brooks. Separate school and state.

Arizona 'law' generates Albuquerque protest

Arizona 'law' generates Albuquerque protest

There was a protest, Saturday, in Albuquerque spurred by Arizona's new immigration "law".
The new "law" is wrong and is an abomination. The Constitution doesn't authorize immigration control. The only thing it mentions that could be construed as controlling immigration actually probably refers to importing slaves, and it passes that particular buck onto the states.

However, this is not a Tenth Amendment issue either, since anything that violates a human right is a counterfeit "law" that has no foundation in legitimacy, whether "authorized" in the Constitution or not.

Nor is this about "trespassing"; you can bar anyone from crossing your property for any reason (unless they happen to be government-sanctioned trespassers out to rob or kill you). The government has no legitimate authority over your property concerning whom you allow on it or bar from it. The government does not legitimately own any property since it owns nothing it did not steal or buy with stolen money. A thief does not own the stolen property he possesses- regardless of his claims to the contrary.

Wrong is wrong. Stop allowing the state, in any of its manifestations, to criminalize self-defense and defense of property. End welfare. ALL welfare. End the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. Do all this and there is no more "illegal immigration" issue, unless your issue is racism, in which case there's nothing I can say to cure that.

If you excuse or ignore Constitutional violations and rights violations you happen to like, then who will stand up for you during Constitutional and/or rights violations you don't like, and which may target you personally?

New Mexico number two in census non-compliance

New Mexico number two in census non-compliance

Yay! We're number two!

Even including urban areas like Albuquerque, which are prone to obeying "authority" no matter how bogus, New Mexico comes in second in the number of census resisters and ignorers. Just behind that last frontier and land of individualism: Alaska. Good start. Now, when the minion of the state comes to your door in the person of a living, breathing busybody, don't cave in. It is still none of their business.

While the Constitution authorizes the government to count heads, and not one thing more, nowhere does it require you or me to cooperate with the enumeration, nor does it authorize legal consequences for refusal to cooperate. That doesn't mean there would be no "legal" consequences, just that by pursuing them the government would demonstrate, once again, its status as an illegitimate occupying force of invaders rather than a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". The myth is exposed.
_____________________

Want a good examination of the issue of anarchism, and an illustration of the opposing views? Head over to Sipsey Street, read Mike V's post, and especially check out the comments, pro and con. This is why I am an anarchist. I especially enjoyed this essay which I found by following a link in the comments. Statists have had thousands of years to get "government" right. It's delusional. It's utopian. It won't happen; it can't happen. Time's up.

Same planet; different worlds

Read this story about a city park (link) in a city just across the state line from me, and then read my letter-to-the editor, which coincidentally came out on the same day in a different newspaper (my local one, which has no website), and notice the completely different mindsets at work. Only 10 miles or so separate us, but we exist in different worlds.

I'll reproduce my letter below, since it is probably impossible to read the scanned image:

I'm going to step up on my soap box for a minute to make a couple of
observations about the Farwell city park. If you don't use the park, then
I am not speaking to you. In your case, you already do more for the park
than you should since you have your property coercively confiscated to pay for
the park's maintenance. For this insult to your rights and property, I
sympathize. I am only speaking to those of us who use the
park.

Well, not everyone who uses the park. I am also not talking to the
unrepentantly irresponsible individuals who smash glass bottles and drop their
waste wherever they happen to be. They wouldn't listen to me, even if they
read a newspaper.

I am speaking about all the trash that winds up on the ground in the
park. The trash cans scattered around the park are worse than useless when
they are full. I notice that they rarely get emptied, since I see
individually distinguishable items sit in the cans for months at a time.
If the can is full, and you stuff some items on top, you may as well toss your
trash on the ground. That is where it will soon end up, after all.
Of course, there is a convenient alternative: there are dumpsters along the
edges of the park that are emptied weekly. You might consider taking a few
extra steps and putting your trash in them. Or, if nothing else appeals to
you, take your trash home with you.

Parties at the park are great, but they produce more trash than the little
cans will hold. Your paper plates, cake boxes, dismembered pinata corpses,
and gift wrap overflow the cans and end up blowing all over the place.
Consider bringing a trash bag for this excess waste and then putting it all in
one of the dumpsters as you leave.

It is not "the city's responsibility". It is yours, as a park
user. Trying to make "the city" responsible just gives "the city" an
excuse to either "tax" you more to "fix it", or to pass silly ordinances that
will violate your liberty. The problems, and the only real solutions, lie
with each of us individually. Your choice is to either listen to me, or
discount me as a crank. It doesn't matter to me which you choose.
Either way, I wish you well.

I was reminded that I should have used the opportunity to advocate privatization, and I kick myself for overlooking that, since it is something that runs through my mind all the time. I wish I could always think of everything that needs to be said in every circumstance!

Burglar has been lucky so far

Burglar has been lucky so far

As if you need more proof that the "justice system" is not "just" and is not organized well-enough to be called a "system", here's this:

An Albuquerque man keeps getting caught after burglarizing houses, yet since he has been found "incompetent" he can't be imprisoned for long, and since his thefts have so far been non-violent he can't be committed to a mental facility.

There is an obvious, very inexpensive, solution. And, if the man keeps doing what he's been doing, according to "the authorities", he will eventually solve the problem himself when he surprises a responsible property owner in a supposedly empty house. The odds are not with him.

Yet, there might be a less bloody solution, too.

I can't help but wonder if a security company might not want to hire this man, and keep him on a "leash" of sorts, in order to test their systems. He certainly has the experience necessary for the job. He could still pursue his hobby, and still make money at it, without the risk of meeting an indignant and frightened person who has been sitting at home, with the lights and TV off due to a migraine. It's a win-win situation. Of course, if he really is incompetent he might not recognize this fact.

Either way, has he been expected to pay restitution to the property owners he has stolen from (and probably left damage in his wake)? Why not? That is an essential part of "justice". Are the property owners who have been harmed allowed to post his picture everywhere they go, to shun him and educate others about what this man does in his spare time?

Follow the link to the news story, memorize the man's face, and when you see him out on the streets in coming weeks, and if you trust what the authorities claim about this man, follow him around and see if he burglarizes anything while you watch. It might be amusing for you and educational for him.

Giving up liberty for ... nothing

Giving up liberty for ... nothing

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Ben Franklin

A few years ago, a person I know gave up almost everything he enjoyed for the promise of financial security. He thought, at the time, it was an acceptable trade. Then this promise of financial security turned out to be a complete fabrication. His enjoyment was sold for nothing, and he found himself in a situation where getting out would cause even more problems than staying in. He deserved to lose the things he loved because he was too willing to sell them for security, and so, he ended up with neither.

I'm not sure if Ben Franklin was speaking only of "countries" or if he was thinking, too, of individuals when he made his famous statement. Either way, he was so very, tragically, right.

In a slightly less individual way, Americans have sold their liberty for false promises of security from government. Government which has turned out to be the biggest threat to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ever encountered.

To have "borders" to "protect us" from immigrants, they have traded their liberty to travel freely, even inside those "borders", for government control and usurpation of private property rights. And still no safety has resulted, not even from "immigrants". Only tyranny.

Faced with the fact that not all businesses are operated in an honest way, Americans traded the free market for fascism that, while not having government owning the businesses outright, completely controls them through regulations while stealing a huge chunk of their profits. And yet people still get scammed and harmed.

Because people fear for their safety while flying, they allowed a government takeover of "security" at airports, yet if a bad person is determined, he can still, obviously, wreak havoc. And, they know that none of the good people aboard a plane will be sufficiently armed to resist effectively due to government controls. Security theater, and the disarming of the decent people, hasn't resulted in safety, but in opportunities. Both for "terrorists" and "TSAerrorists".

Security is an illusion. If you seek it you will end up being hurt and enslaved. You are better off taking your chances in the real world, knowing there are no guarantees, than handing over your liberty to someone who has only your subjugation in mind.
________________________

In Albuquerque area news, the fe(de)ral government is targeting Native American communities with anti-meth advertisements. Paid for with your money, of course, like everything government does.

Here's a better idea: stop criminalizing the stuff and let people seek treatment for themselves and their loved ones without fear of prosecution. Stop enabling social stigma that is based upon nothing more than "illegality". Stop making excuses for theft and aggression, and stop criminalizing self defense and the necessary tools to exercise it.

Let people defend themselves from theft and attack no matter who is doing the thieving or attacking, and regardless of what mind-altering substance the guilty party may be on.
More "laws" are not the answer. Stronger enforcement is not the answer. Advertisements are not the answer. Waking up to reality is the only answer.

To add insult to injury, I notice that in the official list of "root causes" (poverty, lack of opportunity, loss of language and culture, challenging family circumstances, hopelessness), almost all of them are a direct result of governmental treatment of the Native population. Now, the prime offenders think they have the solution? Don't bet on it.