The nature of 'rights'- Do you have 'Second Amendment rights'?
I suppose it is time to once again remind people what rights are, and what the purpose of the Bill of Rights was.
I say this because someone has posted a comment demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue what a right is, and don't understand what the Bill of Rights had to do with rights; specifically the right to own and to carry arms mentioned in the Second Amendment.
A right is something you can do, without asking permission from anyone, simply because you are alive. Anything that does not violate another person's identical and equal rights is within your rights to do, whether trivial or monumentally important. A right can not be limited, regulated, restricted, licensed, or taxed. It can only be respected or violated. A right does not place an obligation on anyone else on your behalf, and "having to put up with being offended" by your actions does not equal an "obligation" on anyone else. In other words, as long as you are not harming or threatening to harm any innocent person while you exercise your right it doesn't matter how upset, offended, or "scared" someone gets by your actions, they have no right to try to stop you.
The Bill of Rights was misnamed as it did nothing to "give" you rights, but was simply written and ratified to make it illegal for government, at any level (yes, even without the 14th Amendment- read the Constitution if you don't believe me. Article IV, Section 2) to make any "laws" in an attempt to violate anyone's pre-existing rights (a redundant phrase).
You don't have "Second Amendment rights", the government has "Second Amendment limits". That they choose to illegally and illegitimately ignore and violate those limits doesn't affect your rights in the least. It only affects your liberty, which is the freedom to exercise those rights.
Private individuals are not prohibited from violating your rights by the Bill of Rights, but by the nature of rights and by the fact that your rights do not exist at their whim. Their rights do not nullify your rights in any way. Anyone, whether a government thug, a private individual, or an employer, who chooses to violate your rights in any way, using any justification, is not your friend, but a mortal enemy. If they do not trust you as a fully-functional human being with all your rights intact, they do not trust you at all and you should not trust them either.
______________________
Would being armed have saved the victims of the jealous murderer in Albuquerque Monday? There is no way to know, as there seems to have been no warning before the shooting began. One thing that is absolutely certain is that being unarmed, whether by Emcor Corp. policy or through irresponsibility, saved no lives. Your life is in your hands. Protect it.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Murderer ingores rules; people die in ABQ
Murderer ingores rules; people die in ABQ
A person violated the Zero Aggression Principle in Albuquerque and people are dead. I would also be willing to place money on the odds that Emcor, where he shot and killed his victims, has a "no guns at work" (except for "professional security" or LEOs, of course) policy.
The only effect a "no guns" policy ever has is to make certain that a bad guy, who by definition refuses to obey the rules, will have his pick of unarmed targets to kill at his convenience.
Murder is "illegal", yet that didn't stop him. Why would anyone with even a handful of functional neurons inside their cranium think that prohibiting guns to those inclined to obey such stupid policies would make a person intent on killing people change his mind?
It is your responsibility to ensure your own safety. Regardless of rules or "laws" to the contrary. If any person or business doesn't trust you as a fully self-responsible person with all your basic human rights intact, then they do not trust you at all. Avoid these people and places as if your worst enemy were there, because that is the reality of the situation. They value their "feel-good" and "sensible" policies above your life.
Gun control kills again. Will the lesson be learned this time?
****************************
A person violated the Zero Aggression Principle in Albuquerque and people are dead. I would also be willing to place money on the odds that Emcor, where he shot and killed his victims, has a "no guns at work" (except for "professional security" or LEOs, of course) policy.
The only effect a "no guns" policy ever has is to make certain that a bad guy, who by definition refuses to obey the rules, will have his pick of unarmed targets to kill at his convenience.
Murder is "illegal", yet that didn't stop him. Why would anyone with even a handful of functional neurons inside their cranium think that prohibiting guns to those inclined to obey such stupid policies would make a person intent on killing people change his mind?
It is your responsibility to ensure your own safety. Regardless of rules or "laws" to the contrary. If any person or business doesn't trust you as a fully self-responsible person with all your basic human rights intact, then they do not trust you at all. Avoid these people and places as if your worst enemy were there, because that is the reality of the situation. They value their "feel-good" and "sensible" policies above your life.
Gun control kills again. Will the lesson be learned this time?
****************************
'Right and wrong' are universal
'Right and wrong' are universal
If an act is right for one person, it is right for everyone, and if it is wrong for one person, it is wrong for everyone. That sounds simple, right? So why is it so hard for statists to grasp? I must conclude it indicates they don't want to understand.
Just take the example of Oscar Grant's murder-by-cop. The cop who killed Grant pulled a gun and shot Grant, who was handcuffed and face-down, in the back. The murderer later claimed he "only" meant to use his Taser on Grant. That would have still been wrong since Grant was cuffed and face-down. When someone is no longer a threat to your life or property, specifically when you have them pinned and cuffed, it is wrong to harm them. Tasers cause harm and can kill (as has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt).
Does anyone honestly believe that had the roles been reversed Mr. Grant would have gotten off with only "2 to 4"? Just imagine if Oscar and some of his friends had cuffed a LEO and put him face-down on the ground, and then simply Tasered him. What consequences would Mr. Grant be facing? What if instead of electro-torturing the cop with a Taser, he had "accidentally" shot and killed him?
In another example an 82 year-old man in Colorado was charged with attempted murder for shooting a thief who was fleeing from him.
As I commented on that article:
Cops, if they are to be trusted with weapons AND a badge, must be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us. The consequences for their destructive behavior must be much more harsh than it would be if they were not a LEO. Refusal to hold them fully accountable for their actions is only facilitating our headlong descent into the police state America is becoming.
_______________________________
Speaking of cops never taking any responsibility for their actions, police say they are searching for two suspects who are "believed to be responsible for a high-speed chase" on I-40. So, the cops who were chasing them share zero responsibility for the high-speed chase? Of course.
Move along... nothing to see here.
If an act is right for one person, it is right for everyone, and if it is wrong for one person, it is wrong for everyone. That sounds simple, right? So why is it so hard for statists to grasp? I must conclude it indicates they don't want to understand.
Just take the example of Oscar Grant's murder-by-cop. The cop who killed Grant pulled a gun and shot Grant, who was handcuffed and face-down, in the back. The murderer later claimed he "only" meant to use his Taser on Grant. That would have still been wrong since Grant was cuffed and face-down. When someone is no longer a threat to your life or property, specifically when you have them pinned and cuffed, it is wrong to harm them. Tasers cause harm and can kill (as has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt).
Does anyone honestly believe that had the roles been reversed Mr. Grant would have gotten off with only "2 to 4"? Just imagine if Oscar and some of his friends had cuffed a LEO and put him face-down on the ground, and then simply Tasered him. What consequences would Mr. Grant be facing? What if instead of electro-torturing the cop with a Taser, he had "accidentally" shot and killed him?
In another example an 82 year-old man in Colorado was charged with attempted murder for shooting a thief who was fleeing from him.
As I commented on that article:
His only error was in calling the cops to report the crime.
Cops shoot and
kill people on a daily basis with much flimsier justification- such as a person
who is doing nothing wrong, but simply hesitates to obey an unreasonable order
from a badge bully. If they can charge this man, who was defending his property
rights, with attempted murder, then every cop who has ever shot anyone who
wasn't an immediate lethal threat should also be charged with murder or
attempted murder. Otherwise cops and "the law" are hypocritical beyond
repair.
Cops, if they are to be trusted with weapons AND a badge, must be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us. The consequences for their destructive behavior must be much more harsh than it would be if they were not a LEO. Refusal to hold them fully accountable for their actions is only facilitating our headlong descent into the police state America is becoming.
_______________________________
Speaking of cops never taking any responsibility for their actions, police say they are searching for two suspects who are "believed to be responsible for a high-speed chase" on I-40. So, the cops who were chasing them share zero responsibility for the high-speed chase? Of course.
Move along... nothing to see here.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
ABQ cops find stolen property
ABQ cops find stolen property
Albuquerque cops caught a thief with 30 stolen guns. Now the question remains- were those guns returned to the owners, or are they now stolen by the police department instead of the freelance thief? After all, as long as the guns are not back with their owners they are still stolen. If the police still have the guns, then the police are accessories to the theft and are no better than the burglar who originally stole the weapons.
The whole "holding as evidence" excuse is just that: an excuse. Photographs and serial numbers would be just as condemning during a trial- completely sufficient as long as the records were destroyed immediately after the trial. There is no reason to leave the information in the wrong hands where it can be abused.
When a theft occurs, justice demands that the victim be returned to his "pre-violation" condition. This means his guns in his house and no record of what he owns in the computers of the police department. Will there be justice?
Albuquerque cops caught a thief with 30 stolen guns. Now the question remains- were those guns returned to the owners, or are they now stolen by the police department instead of the freelance thief? After all, as long as the guns are not back with their owners they are still stolen. If the police still have the guns, then the police are accessories to the theft and are no better than the burglar who originally stole the weapons.
The whole "holding as evidence" excuse is just that: an excuse. Photographs and serial numbers would be just as condemning during a trial- completely sufficient as long as the records were destroyed immediately after the trial. There is no reason to leave the information in the wrong hands where it can be abused.
When a theft occurs, justice demands that the victim be returned to his "pre-violation" condition. This means his guns in his house and no record of what he owns in the computers of the police department. Will there be justice?
Friday, July 09, 2010
Offering libertarian solutions
Offering libertarian solutions
Libertarians are often accused of "whining about government instead of offering solutions". That's just silly. I offer solutions all the time. If statists refuse to hear me, or if they ridicule the solutions I offer, I have still offered solutions.
As they say about leading horses to water; the same applies to people. There is no problem that can't be solved by a liberty-respecting solution. The libertarian solution is usually more immediate than the coercively imposed "solutions" the State prefers, and is cheaper or even free. But, obviously the solution is different. So different that apparently many people tune it out. The real solution means looking at things from a different perspective. Not what's expedient, but what's right.
So the statists refuse to hear and continue to accuse you of never offering solutions. Makes me want to say something about getting the car key out of their ear and listening for a while. Just because they don't want to implement the solutions doesn't mean they aren't real, operational, solutions.
Exposing the problems caused by government, the practice statists call "whining", is also part of the solution. Until you understand that the current path is the source of most of the problems it is hard to choose another path. Until you understand that "this doesn't ever work", and realize that doing even more of the same will not work either, it is difficult to abandon the failed method and try something totally different.
Therefore, I try to expose the fact that the status quo is causing the problems and then offer a way out, in language that most people can understand, without relying on references that would only be understood by the "in-group. Even in my little town full of "religious conservatives" it seems to be making a dent.
__________________________
I see a new report claims that "illegal immigrants" cost Americans $113 billion per year. Yet, reading the article I notice that it isn't the immigrants costing Americans, it is the US government's socialist programs that are costing us. If the theft ended today, the cost would go away. Problem solved.
_______________________
An Albuquerque city councilor wants to take away a homeowners association's authority to enforce rules that require a homeowner to have some type of "lawn" in their front yard.
Personally, I despise "homeowners associations" and "lawns". However, as long as you joined voluntarily and any new rules are only enacted by unanimous consent, it is no one else's business what the rules are. Not even to reduce water usage in the desert. As I have pointed out before, if water is being wasted, it means it is priced below its actual free-market value, and the ABQ water monopoly needs to die. Problem solved.
Libertarians are often accused of "whining about government instead of offering solutions". That's just silly. I offer solutions all the time. If statists refuse to hear me, or if they ridicule the solutions I offer, I have still offered solutions.
As they say about leading horses to water; the same applies to people. There is no problem that can't be solved by a liberty-respecting solution. The libertarian solution is usually more immediate than the coercively imposed "solutions" the State prefers, and is cheaper or even free. But, obviously the solution is different. So different that apparently many people tune it out. The real solution means looking at things from a different perspective. Not what's expedient, but what's right.
So the statists refuse to hear and continue to accuse you of never offering solutions. Makes me want to say something about getting the car key out of their ear and listening for a while. Just because they don't want to implement the solutions doesn't mean they aren't real, operational, solutions.
Exposing the problems caused by government, the practice statists call "whining", is also part of the solution. Until you understand that the current path is the source of most of the problems it is hard to choose another path. Until you understand that "this doesn't ever work", and realize that doing even more of the same will not work either, it is difficult to abandon the failed method and try something totally different.
Therefore, I try to expose the fact that the status quo is causing the problems and then offer a way out, in language that most people can understand, without relying on references that would only be understood by the "in-group. Even in my little town full of "religious conservatives" it seems to be making a dent.
__________________________
I see a new report claims that "illegal immigrants" cost Americans $113 billion per year. Yet, reading the article I notice that it isn't the immigrants costing Americans, it is the US government's socialist programs that are costing us. If the theft ended today, the cost would go away. Problem solved.
_______________________
An Albuquerque city councilor wants to take away a homeowners association's authority to enforce rules that require a homeowner to have some type of "lawn" in their front yard.
Personally, I despise "homeowners associations" and "lawns". However, as long as you joined voluntarily and any new rules are only enacted by unanimous consent, it is no one else's business what the rules are. Not even to reduce water usage in the desert. As I have pointed out before, if water is being wasted, it means it is priced below its actual free-market value, and the ABQ water monopoly needs to die. Problem solved.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Authority to license?
Authority to license?
In the latest issue of The Libertarian Enterprise (you do read it weekly, right?), A.X. Perez said, in a letter-to-the-editor exchange regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment: "I might, maybe, concede that people should not own weapons powerful enough to literally blow the planet apart without special licenses."
That statement stopped me in my tracks. Who could possibly have the authority to issue such licenses? Not government, although they will be the ones to claim the authority.
Personally, I don't think people should "own weapons powerful enough to literally blow the planet apart" at all. Neither as individuals nor as a collective of insane individuals we know as "government". Yet, because of cost and difficulty, governments are the only ones actually in possession of such weapons now.
Regardless of who has, or may in the future have, doomsday weaponry, there is no justification for allowing the only ones who currently have them to "permit" or deny them to the rest of us. To pretend that these people have any authority to "license" the rest of us to own any sort of weaponry is crazy. That's like saying your insane uncle can give you permission to lock your door at night to keep him out of your bedroom while you sleep.
Obviously, there would never be any right to use any such weapon as long as you were on Earth. It would be impossible to use it without harming innocent people. That is not the case with guns; even fully-automatic .50 caliber rifles.
*******************
Also, notice my most recent submission to The Libertarian Enterprise, which you may have already caught at my blog.
____________________________
Another reason firefighters should be privatized: so they don't act as agents of the State.
Albuquerque firefighters patrolled the streets inspecting fireworks vendors; looking for violations of fireworks "laws". If anyone inspects the vendors' stands, it should be their insurance company (if any). Does the State not see the irony in regulating the celebration of the biggest anti-government holiday? Does no one see the irony in cooperating?
Fireworks, as explosives, are covered by the Second Amendment; therefore government is prohibited, by law, from making any regulations regarding them. No authority; no "crime".
In the latest issue of The Libertarian Enterprise (you do read it weekly, right?), A.X. Perez said, in a letter-to-the-editor exchange regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment: "I might, maybe, concede that people should not own weapons powerful enough to literally blow the planet apart without special licenses."
That statement stopped me in my tracks. Who could possibly have the authority to issue such licenses? Not government, although they will be the ones to claim the authority.
Personally, I don't think people should "own weapons powerful enough to literally blow the planet apart" at all. Neither as individuals nor as a collective of insane individuals we know as "government". Yet, because of cost and difficulty, governments are the only ones actually in possession of such weapons now.
Regardless of who has, or may in the future have, doomsday weaponry, there is no justification for allowing the only ones who currently have them to "permit" or deny them to the rest of us. To pretend that these people have any authority to "license" the rest of us to own any sort of weaponry is crazy. That's like saying your insane uncle can give you permission to lock your door at night to keep him out of your bedroom while you sleep.
Obviously, there would never be any right to use any such weapon as long as you were on Earth. It would be impossible to use it without harming innocent people. That is not the case with guns; even fully-automatic .50 caliber rifles.
*******************
Also, notice my most recent submission to The Libertarian Enterprise, which you may have already caught at my blog.
____________________________
Another reason firefighters should be privatized: so they don't act as agents of the State.
Albuquerque firefighters patrolled the streets inspecting fireworks vendors; looking for violations of fireworks "laws". If anyone inspects the vendors' stands, it should be their insurance company (if any). Does the State not see the irony in regulating the celebration of the biggest anti-government holiday? Does no one see the irony in cooperating?
Fireworks, as explosives, are covered by the Second Amendment; therefore government is prohibited, by law, from making any regulations regarding them. No authority; no "crime".
Sunday, July 04, 2010
The Declaration of Independence vs. the Declaration of Dependence
The Declaration of Independence vs. the Declaration of Dependence
Happy Independence Day!
Back in 1776 some fairly radical folks wrote a good document that told a meddling, overbearing government where to stick it. We call that document "The Declaration of Independence". Then, they backed up their words with guns to get the point across clearly enough that statism-addled brains would understand. Their secession succeeded. So far, so good. But...
Just a few short years later they took back everything they said with the Constitution- or as it might more honestly be called- "The Declaration of Dependence". Or, maybe "The Anti-Declaration of Independence".
The Declaration of Independence's points still apply today, and the abuses of the government that resulted from the Constitution are now much worse than those that led to the original Declaration and secession ("The American Revolution").
So, go out and celebrate liberty on this Independence Day 2010, but keep in mind that doing so will probably make you a "criminal". Just like those hardened criminals who, in blatant violation of the ruling government's "laws", wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence.
_______________________
Enjoy your scaled-back, government-sponsored, "tax" financed, officially licensed, with explosives and freedoms prohibited to you and me, Albuquerque fireworks show. Sad how "liberty" and "independence" have been outlawed unless you celebrate them in a government-approved way, isn't it.
Happy Independence Day!
Back in 1776 some fairly radical folks wrote a good document that told a meddling, overbearing government where to stick it. We call that document "The Declaration of Independence". Then, they backed up their words with guns to get the point across clearly enough that statism-addled brains would understand. Their secession succeeded. So far, so good. But...
Just a few short years later they took back everything they said with the Constitution- or as it might more honestly be called- "The Declaration of Dependence". Or, maybe "The Anti-Declaration of Independence".
The Declaration of Independence's points still apply today, and the abuses of the government that resulted from the Constitution are now much worse than those that led to the original Declaration and secession ("The American Revolution").
So, go out and celebrate liberty on this Independence Day 2010, but keep in mind that doing so will probably make you a "criminal". Just like those hardened criminals who, in blatant violation of the ruling government's "laws", wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence.
_______________________
Enjoy your scaled-back, government-sponsored, "tax" financed, officially licensed, with explosives and freedoms prohibited to you and me, Albuquerque fireworks show. Sad how "liberty" and "independence" have been outlawed unless you celebrate them in a government-approved way, isn't it.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Owning and carrying guns- a right that is still right for today
Owning and carrying guns- a right that is still right for today
This morning a panelist on a Fox news discussion said "Just because some old men in knickers 200 years ago said we could bear arms doesn't mean it's right for today".
And just because someone a few hundred years ago said gravity causes things to fall to the ground doesn't mean things still fall. But they do. An observation of a pre-existing condition doesn't cause the condition. Nor does a denial of the condition invalidate it in any way.
But he's right in a way he probably wasn't smart enough to understand. "Just because some old men in knickers 200 years ago said", and wrote, that they recognized that the right to own and to carry weapons was inherent in being human "doesn't mean" it is right for today. Their opinions have no bearing on it at all. That is fortunate, since opinions are always subject to change.
Before the first human was human, the right to use weapons was already fully formed. It doesn't matter if those weapons are a body part or something carried in the hand. Horns, fangs, venom, claws, sticks, stones, knives, spears, arrows, guns- it isn't the tool that is important; it is the absolute right to defend your life, liberty, and property. No other creature would ever even question that fundamental fact of life. It is, and should always be, recognized as a given; a necessary condition of life.
A gun is not good or bad; it is the context. If a bad guy is holding a gun on me I am not stupid enough to blame the gun- I blame the thug holding it. If he was holding a knife or a stone or a "law" he would still be just as bad. No matter what tool he is holding, I want the best, most effective tool available to me to defend myself from his aggression. I want the same for you. At this point in history, that tool is a gun. It is still right for today. It will still be right 200 years from now. Or even a million years from now when guns as we know them might seem quaint.
The right is, and always will be, a right, even as the tools for exercising that right progress. The opinions of people 200 years ago, or today, have no bearing on that right; only on whether the right is respected or violated. I choose to respect it.
____________________________________
Once again, remember that New Mexico is a "Gold Star" open carry state and that even cities like Albuquerque have no authority to forbid the open carry of guns. Of course, they don't have the authority to regulate the concealed carry of guns, either, but they do lie about that one, and so far have gotten away with it.
This morning a panelist on a Fox news discussion said "Just because some old men in knickers 200 years ago said we could bear arms doesn't mean it's right for today".
And just because someone a few hundred years ago said gravity causes things to fall to the ground doesn't mean things still fall. But they do. An observation of a pre-existing condition doesn't cause the condition. Nor does a denial of the condition invalidate it in any way.
But he's right in a way he probably wasn't smart enough to understand. "Just because some old men in knickers 200 years ago said", and wrote, that they recognized that the right to own and to carry weapons was inherent in being human "doesn't mean" it is right for today. Their opinions have no bearing on it at all. That is fortunate, since opinions are always subject to change.
Before the first human was human, the right to use weapons was already fully formed. It doesn't matter if those weapons are a body part or something carried in the hand. Horns, fangs, venom, claws, sticks, stones, knives, spears, arrows, guns- it isn't the tool that is important; it is the absolute right to defend your life, liberty, and property. No other creature would ever even question that fundamental fact of life. It is, and should always be, recognized as a given; a necessary condition of life.
A gun is not good or bad; it is the context. If a bad guy is holding a gun on me I am not stupid enough to blame the gun- I blame the thug holding it. If he was holding a knife or a stone or a "law" he would still be just as bad. No matter what tool he is holding, I want the best, most effective tool available to me to defend myself from his aggression. I want the same for you. At this point in history, that tool is a gun. It is still right for today. It will still be right 200 years from now. Or even a million years from now when guns as we know them might seem quaint.
The right is, and always will be, a right, even as the tools for exercising that right progress. The opinions of people 200 years ago, or today, have no bearing on that right; only on whether the right is respected or violated. I choose to respect it.
____________________________________
Once again, remember that New Mexico is a "Gold Star" open carry state and that even cities like Albuquerque have no authority to forbid the open carry of guns. Of course, they don't have the authority to regulate the concealed carry of guns, either, but they do lie about that one, and so far have gotten away with it.
Friday, July 02, 2010
'Law pollution'- stop the insanity. Plus: ABQ firefighters get unwelcome news
'Law pollution'- stop the insanity. Plus: ABQ firefighters get unwelcome news
How many "laws" will be enough? I know I have mentioned this a lot, but it is because law pollution is an ongoing, and constantly increasing, serious problem.
I am hearing about a passel of new "laws" that just went in to effect in New Mexico. Each year, more and more "laws" are enacted, without the old ones being eliminated. "Laws" on top of "laws" until every breath you take is either mandatory or forbidden. Your inability to obey all the compiled and contradictory "laws" results in "crime" (obviously, by definition) which is used as justification for more enforcers occupying your home town. When will there be enough "laws"?
Not every "problem" needs a new "law" to making something else "illegal". Criminalizing everything solves nothing. There is no way to criminalize your way to Utopia. When the thought "there oughta be a law" occurs to you, remind yourself that, no, there ought not. No matter what the imagined problem might be. If it is wrong, it is already illegal. If it is annoying or potentially dangerous, deal with it like a self-responsible person.
There are no new wrongs. There is aggression, which has been illegal for thousands of years. There is theft, which has been illegal just as long as aggression. There is fraud, which has also been illegal as long as the other two. There is trespassing, which is also just as illegal and has been since time immemorial. Then gangs of thugs came along, set up shop among the productive people, claimed legitimacy and exempted themselves and their representatives from the laws against all the real wrongs, and started finding excuses to punish people for acts that were never wrong to begin with. That is not a recipe for a civilized society. It is, however, a perfect description of a government.
_______________________________
Firefighters in Albuquerque are upset that the city is cutting their pay. This should just drive home the point that the current coercive way of providing "fire protection" is not anywhere near the ideal solution.
In my opinion, there should be free market competition, with people paying for what they need, from the provider of their choice. Voluntarily. Obviously, there are infinite ways the details could be worked out in a free society, but I have a few thoughts.
It could be handled like insurance, and any damages the fire department fails to prevent they would pay for. Therefore, prevention would be the driving motivation. Someone will invariably balk over "free riders", but that is a non-issue I have dealt with previously. It only "must be done this way" if you refuse to consider better options. The current system is just about the worst imaginable "solution". Time for a change.
(If the KOB article hasn't been corrected, notice that it says "...a district court judge recently ruled that the city can impose the best and final offer that comes up during negotiations if medication fails." I'd like to know what kind of "medication" that would be, and if it shows up in "drug tests". I kept a screen shot. It's good to find humor in reports of socialism and tyranny.)
How many "laws" will be enough? I know I have mentioned this a lot, but it is because law pollution is an ongoing, and constantly increasing, serious problem.
I am hearing about a passel of new "laws" that just went in to effect in New Mexico. Each year, more and more "laws" are enacted, without the old ones being eliminated. "Laws" on top of "laws" until every breath you take is either mandatory or forbidden. Your inability to obey all the compiled and contradictory "laws" results in "crime" (obviously, by definition) which is used as justification for more enforcers occupying your home town. When will there be enough "laws"?
Not every "problem" needs a new "law" to making something else "illegal". Criminalizing everything solves nothing. There is no way to criminalize your way to Utopia. When the thought "there oughta be a law" occurs to you, remind yourself that, no, there ought not. No matter what the imagined problem might be. If it is wrong, it is already illegal. If it is annoying or potentially dangerous, deal with it like a self-responsible person.
There are no new wrongs. There is aggression, which has been illegal for thousands of years. There is theft, which has been illegal just as long as aggression. There is fraud, which has also been illegal as long as the other two. There is trespassing, which is also just as illegal and has been since time immemorial. Then gangs of thugs came along, set up shop among the productive people, claimed legitimacy and exempted themselves and their representatives from the laws against all the real wrongs, and started finding excuses to punish people for acts that were never wrong to begin with. That is not a recipe for a civilized society. It is, however, a perfect description of a government.
_______________________________
Firefighters in Albuquerque are upset that the city is cutting their pay. This should just drive home the point that the current coercive way of providing "fire protection" is not anywhere near the ideal solution.
In my opinion, there should be free market competition, with people paying for what they need, from the provider of their choice. Voluntarily. Obviously, there are infinite ways the details could be worked out in a free society, but I have a few thoughts.
It could be handled like insurance, and any damages the fire department fails to prevent they would pay for. Therefore, prevention would be the driving motivation. Someone will invariably balk over "free riders", but that is a non-issue I have dealt with previously. It only "must be done this way" if you refuse to consider better options. The current system is just about the worst imaginable "solution". Time for a change.
(If the KOB article hasn't been corrected, notice that it says "...a district court judge recently ruled that the city can impose the best and final offer that comes up during negotiations if medication fails." I'd like to know what kind of "medication" that would be, and if it shows up in "drug tests". I kept a screen shot. It's good to find humor in reports of socialism and tyranny.)
Prescription for America ("Essay to the Editor")
Note: This is a Letter to the Editor I sent to our local newspaper, The State Line Tribune. They have no online edition, so I reproduce the letter here:
I agree with Mike Pomper (publisher of the local paper) that America is in a terrible situation at this point in history. My solutions, however, differ somewhat from his.
The solutions are known by many, and are studiously avoided at all costs. They are self-evident if one has learned from history and from human nature. Yet, they go against the current in such an obvious way that many refuse to even acknowledge that the problems of America are solvable- easily, cheaply, and immediately. No new taxes or bureaucracies are needed. In fact, the solutions are free. Yes, the solutions are scary to those who think government is legitimate, but that doesn't make the solutions less true. So what would it take to save America?
Step one: End the War on Drugs. Completely. Re-legalize it all, once again, as it was before. Don't "regulate and tax"; just get out. It isn't "giving in" when you realize you have been heading the opposite direction from where you need to go and you turn around; it is "coming to your senses". The only ones opposed to this are those whose jobs, status, and livelihoods depend on rushing full-steam down this wrong track, and those they have fooled. The War on Drugs has failed to reduce drug abuse. Addiction rates are unchanged after about a century of prohibition.
Either you control your own body, or you do not. It has never been within the legitimate authority of anyone to decide what another person can put into his body. Trying to assert that false authority causes tragedy. Abusing drugs is a stupid thing to do. Yet, so is abusing food, electronic entertainment, or "authority". Of these, only the abuse of "authority" harms other people more than it harms the abuser. If you have a problem, and you want to solve it, seek help. Without fear of the life-destroying consequences of the legal system that is inherent in prohibition.
The crime associated with drug abuse, and used as the justification for the war, is actually caused by the prohibition, and has skyrocketed. Violence always goes hand-in-hand with prohibition, whether it is the "Mexican cartels" or the turf wars between gangs in America. Prohibition raises prices, which gives incentives to take the risks and attracts risk-seeking personality types who don't worry about consequences. Violence is used among these people in order to protect their share of the market; that violence often spills over into the rest of society, and creates justifications for violating the rights of people who are not even using the prohibited substances. If a person attacks another person or steals property, address that issue and stop the violations of our human, and Constitutional, rights that come from a war that is wrong at its very foundation.
Step two: Eliminate the Federal Reserve and stop its printing presses. Counterfeiting isn't any better when government (or a quasi-governmental gang) does it. Through the Federal Reserve's actions, the dollar has lost around 96% of its value so far. Look for the trend to continue to erode those last four cents. Each new dollar that is printed or electronically created makes the dollar in your wallet or bank account worth just a little less. The mountains of fictitious money handed out in the bailouts will devastate your financial future as soon as it trickles down and permeates society. Thanks to the "bailouts" and the "stimulus", it is now unavoidable.
Only a gold standard, preferably with no "official currency", can save America's financial future now. This solution would take power from the US government and its pet "banksters", so it will not even be considered.
The good news is that you can still protect yourself from the worst of the consequences, even without "official" sanction. When the hyperinflation that will result from the US government's counterfeiting operation hits, stop accepting US dollars as payment for anything. Immediately; without worrying that you will offend someone or look crazy. Otherwise you will be working for free- trading value for nothing. Only by taking this action, or by stocking up on silver, gold, and non-perishable goods now, can you protect yourself in the coming collapse. Hoarding, saving, or investing "dollars" will not help you when those dollars lose the last bit of value they still retain.
Step three: The "Border" and the tangentially related crusade of "national security", especially the so-called "War on Terror", are killing America. Stop the insanity now and hope it isn't too late.
You have an absolute right to control who you allow on your property. However, you have no right whatsoever to control who your neighbor allows on his property. If his guest leaves his property and steals from you or attacks you, you have a fundamental human right to defend yourself. It is the act of aggression that is the problem, not where the person committing the aggression came from.
All property should be privately owned. Look at the Farwell city park to see the "tragedy of the commons" illustrated here in our own town. People take care of that which they own and trash that which they consider someone else's responsibility. Government can not legitimately own anything since it acquires nothing it did not steal from the original owner or purchase with money it took by force or threat of force. A thief does not own the stolen possessions he holds. Therefore government has no legitimate say in any trespassing dispute; only the real, individual owner of the property does. It doesn't matter where the trespasser originated. On private property a census worker is just as much a trespasser as an unofficial migrant from Mexico. And property without a real, individual owner can not be trespassed on.
Many people point to the existence and abuse of "social programs" as a reason to allow government to control immigration, but this only points out that socialism is unsustainable anywhere it is tried, and under whatever name you give it. It is essential that all welfare end, even the parts you personally approve of or benefit from. That a cure exposes another fatal disease that also must be dealt with doesn't discredit the cure. It just shows why liberty is not a piecemeal proposition.
As far as "The War on Terror" goes, do you really think US troops in other countries are making America safer? Might they instead be giving new generations of people in those occupied countries a reason to grow up resenting, or even hating, America? How would you feel if troops from North Korea were occupying Farwell, even benevolently, and trying to "win hearts and minds"? I assume most of us would be shooting them and setting "IEDs". If there is a need for a military beyond the Constitutional militia, which is doubtful, the place for them to be is inside America, on military bases, ready to "defend us" here, not scattered around the globe ensuring job security for the next generation of "terrorism fighters".
These are the first things that must be addressed. Of course, there are more solutions available to those brave enough to look. Not "instead of" these first three, but "in addition to". Yes it's a radical suggestion, but it is necessary. Anything less "radical" is like putting a band-aid on a gaping, gushing bullet wound.
Don't look to government for the solutions any more than you'd ask a coyote to design a good chicken pen for you. Every time government tries to "fix" something, it inevitably makes it worse. Mr. Pomper is concerned about "small business", for good reason. Government doesn't need to "help" small business, it just needs to get out of the way and stop actively hurting it.
The answer is never more government intervention. The answer is more personal responsibility. You can't legislate that, no matter how hard you try or how severe you make the penalties. You will only make things worse by denying the facts. Stop using government as a crutch; you don't need it and if you continue to lean on it you will soon forget how to walk on your own.
These three steps I mentioned would make the greatest and most immediate positive difference to your quality of life, improving it more than you dare dream. But only if you have the courage to start walking in liberty, against the current, today.
I agree with Mike Pomper (publisher of the local paper) that America is in a terrible situation at this point in history. My solutions, however, differ somewhat from his.
The solutions are known by many, and are studiously avoided at all costs. They are self-evident if one has learned from history and from human nature. Yet, they go against the current in such an obvious way that many refuse to even acknowledge that the problems of America are solvable- easily, cheaply, and immediately. No new taxes or bureaucracies are needed. In fact, the solutions are free. Yes, the solutions are scary to those who think government is legitimate, but that doesn't make the solutions less true. So what would it take to save America?
Step one: End the War on Drugs. Completely. Re-legalize it all, once again, as it was before. Don't "regulate and tax"; just get out. It isn't "giving in" when you realize you have been heading the opposite direction from where you need to go and you turn around; it is "coming to your senses". The only ones opposed to this are those whose jobs, status, and livelihoods depend on rushing full-steam down this wrong track, and those they have fooled. The War on Drugs has failed to reduce drug abuse. Addiction rates are unchanged after about a century of prohibition.
Either you control your own body, or you do not. It has never been within the legitimate authority of anyone to decide what another person can put into his body. Trying to assert that false authority causes tragedy. Abusing drugs is a stupid thing to do. Yet, so is abusing food, electronic entertainment, or "authority". Of these, only the abuse of "authority" harms other people more than it harms the abuser. If you have a problem, and you want to solve it, seek help. Without fear of the life-destroying consequences of the legal system that is inherent in prohibition.
The crime associated with drug abuse, and used as the justification for the war, is actually caused by the prohibition, and has skyrocketed. Violence always goes hand-in-hand with prohibition, whether it is the "Mexican cartels" or the turf wars between gangs in America. Prohibition raises prices, which gives incentives to take the risks and attracts risk-seeking personality types who don't worry about consequences. Violence is used among these people in order to protect their share of the market; that violence often spills over into the rest of society, and creates justifications for violating the rights of people who are not even using the prohibited substances. If a person attacks another person or steals property, address that issue and stop the violations of our human, and Constitutional, rights that come from a war that is wrong at its very foundation.
Step two: Eliminate the Federal Reserve and stop its printing presses. Counterfeiting isn't any better when government (or a quasi-governmental gang) does it. Through the Federal Reserve's actions, the dollar has lost around 96% of its value so far. Look for the trend to continue to erode those last four cents. Each new dollar that is printed or electronically created makes the dollar in your wallet or bank account worth just a little less. The mountains of fictitious money handed out in the bailouts will devastate your financial future as soon as it trickles down and permeates society. Thanks to the "bailouts" and the "stimulus", it is now unavoidable.
Only a gold standard, preferably with no "official currency", can save America's financial future now. This solution would take power from the US government and its pet "banksters", so it will not even be considered.
The good news is that you can still protect yourself from the worst of the consequences, even without "official" sanction. When the hyperinflation that will result from the US government's counterfeiting operation hits, stop accepting US dollars as payment for anything. Immediately; without worrying that you will offend someone or look crazy. Otherwise you will be working for free- trading value for nothing. Only by taking this action, or by stocking up on silver, gold, and non-perishable goods now, can you protect yourself in the coming collapse. Hoarding, saving, or investing "dollars" will not help you when those dollars lose the last bit of value they still retain.
Step three: The "Border" and the tangentially related crusade of "national security", especially the so-called "War on Terror", are killing America. Stop the insanity now and hope it isn't too late.
You have an absolute right to control who you allow on your property. However, you have no right whatsoever to control who your neighbor allows on his property. If his guest leaves his property and steals from you or attacks you, you have a fundamental human right to defend yourself. It is the act of aggression that is the problem, not where the person committing the aggression came from.
All property should be privately owned. Look at the Farwell city park to see the "tragedy of the commons" illustrated here in our own town. People take care of that which they own and trash that which they consider someone else's responsibility. Government can not legitimately own anything since it acquires nothing it did not steal from the original owner or purchase with money it took by force or threat of force. A thief does not own the stolen possessions he holds. Therefore government has no legitimate say in any trespassing dispute; only the real, individual owner of the property does. It doesn't matter where the trespasser originated. On private property a census worker is just as much a trespasser as an unofficial migrant from Mexico. And property without a real, individual owner can not be trespassed on.
Many people point to the existence and abuse of "social programs" as a reason to allow government to control immigration, but this only points out that socialism is unsustainable anywhere it is tried, and under whatever name you give it. It is essential that all welfare end, even the parts you personally approve of or benefit from. That a cure exposes another fatal disease that also must be dealt with doesn't discredit the cure. It just shows why liberty is not a piecemeal proposition.
As far as "The War on Terror" goes, do you really think US troops in other countries are making America safer? Might they instead be giving new generations of people in those occupied countries a reason to grow up resenting, or even hating, America? How would you feel if troops from North Korea were occupying Farwell, even benevolently, and trying to "win hearts and minds"? I assume most of us would be shooting them and setting "IEDs". If there is a need for a military beyond the Constitutional militia, which is doubtful, the place for them to be is inside America, on military bases, ready to "defend us" here, not scattered around the globe ensuring job security for the next generation of "terrorism fighters".
These are the first things that must be addressed. Of course, there are more solutions available to those brave enough to look. Not "instead of" these first three, but "in addition to". Yes it's a radical suggestion, but it is necessary. Anything less "radical" is like putting a band-aid on a gaping, gushing bullet wound.
Don't look to government for the solutions any more than you'd ask a coyote to design a good chicken pen for you. Every time government tries to "fix" something, it inevitably makes it worse. Mr. Pomper is concerned about "small business", for good reason. Government doesn't need to "help" small business, it just needs to get out of the way and stop actively hurting it.
The answer is never more government intervention. The answer is more personal responsibility. You can't legislate that, no matter how hard you try or how severe you make the penalties. You will only make things worse by denying the facts. Stop using government as a crutch; you don't need it and if you continue to lean on it you will soon forget how to walk on your own.
These three steps I mentioned would make the greatest and most immediate positive difference to your quality of life, improving it more than you dare dream. But only if you have the courage to start walking in liberty, against the current, today.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment
The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment
The Supreme Courtjesters have handed down their ruling on The Second Amendment. Their ruling did not surprise me. Let's see if you are smarter than a "Supreme". I'm betting you are.
Or, as I have re-written it, by going to the dictionary for each and every word, to make it more clear:
This does not "grant" a right to own guns; it prohibits government from having any say whatsoever on the matter. The right to own and to carry personal weapons has existed as long as humans have been humans, and even before that if you count claws, fangs, and various chemical weaponry possessed by many animals. Which I do.
Just as the First Amendment protects five different rights, the Second Amendment protects two rights; the right to form a militia, and also the right to own and to carry weapons. That isn't difficult to understand. A lot of people who don't want to understand the "shall not be infringed" part tend to try to focus on the "well regulated Militia" part.
That opening statement, by mentioning a "militia", only explained one reason the founders thought it was necessary, but didn't limit its scope in any way. It would be like me saying "Gold coins being necessary for the purchase of a good meal, the right of the people to own and to spend gold coins shall not be infringed". It does not limit the owning of gold coins to only people who wish to eat "a good meal", but states one very compelling reason why people might need them and why no individual or government has the authority to stand in the way of owning and carrying them for any reason.
Another problem with the Supreme Court equivocation is that it seems they try very hard to misunderstand what "infringed" means. Let's use a different gold coin analogy. Suppose the recognition of your "right" is a gold coin. If someone shaves a little bit off the edge, they have infringed that coin. It may not even show up without a microscopic examination, but the damage is done. Those shavings can never be returned to their proper place, and each one steals a bit of value from the coin.
Now, the reason the ruling did not surprise me is that they did what they, as tools of the growing 21st Century global police state, had to do. Had they said there was no right to "keep and bear arms" they faced the possibility of an armed revolution. The "frog pot" is not quite warm enough here in America for them to get away with that move yet. However, had they been honest about the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, including the fact that it was intended to protect your right to own weapons of current military function and pattern, without asking permission of anyone, anywhere, and even admitting those weapons were supposed to be available, outside the authority and beyond the oversight of any part of government, to be used as a defense against an unresponsive or tyrannical government, they would have had to admit that every single gun control law in the world (yes, not just America) is completely wrong and evil and outside the authority of any government. That would not suit their agenda at all. So, they lied.
The Supreme Courtjesters have handed down their ruling on The Second Amendment. Their ruling did not surprise me. Let's see if you are smarter than a "Supreme". I'm betting you are.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Or, as I have re-written it, by going to the dictionary for each and every word, to make it more clear:
"Because a very effective, armed, population is essential in order for America
to stay free and safe, the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any
type of weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot
be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"
This does not "grant" a right to own guns; it prohibits government from having any say whatsoever on the matter. The right to own and to carry personal weapons has existed as long as humans have been humans, and even before that if you count claws, fangs, and various chemical weaponry possessed by many animals. Which I do.
Just as the First Amendment protects five different rights, the Second Amendment protects two rights; the right to form a militia, and also the right to own and to carry weapons. That isn't difficult to understand. A lot of people who don't want to understand the "shall not be infringed" part tend to try to focus on the "well regulated Militia" part.
That opening statement, by mentioning a "militia", only explained one reason the founders thought it was necessary, but didn't limit its scope in any way. It would be like me saying "Gold coins being necessary for the purchase of a good meal, the right of the people to own and to spend gold coins shall not be infringed". It does not limit the owning of gold coins to only people who wish to eat "a good meal", but states one very compelling reason why people might need them and why no individual or government has the authority to stand in the way of owning and carrying them for any reason.
Another problem with the Supreme Court equivocation is that it seems they try very hard to misunderstand what "infringed" means. Let's use a different gold coin analogy. Suppose the recognition of your "right" is a gold coin. If someone shaves a little bit off the edge, they have infringed that coin. It may not even show up without a microscopic examination, but the damage is done. Those shavings can never be returned to their proper place, and each one steals a bit of value from the coin.
Now, the reason the ruling did not surprise me is that they did what they, as tools of the growing 21st Century global police state, had to do. Had they said there was no right to "keep and bear arms" they faced the possibility of an armed revolution. The "frog pot" is not quite warm enough here in America for them to get away with that move yet. However, had they been honest about the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, including the fact that it was intended to protect your right to own weapons of current military function and pattern, without asking permission of anyone, anywhere, and even admitting those weapons were supposed to be available, outside the authority and beyond the oversight of any part of government, to be used as a defense against an unresponsive or tyrannical government, they would have had to admit that every single gun control law in the world (yes, not just America) is completely wrong and evil and outside the authority of any government. That would not suit their agenda at all. So, they lied.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
'Fine', like 'taxation', is another word for theft
'Fine', like 'taxation', is another word for theft
Something absolutely has to be done about the "justice system". Seriously. From the Supreme Court "affirming a right" while pretending it is merely a privilege which can be tailored to suit the wishes of the corrupt and frightened Rulers (Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. There is no wiggle-room, you black-robed taterheads!), to the most "piddlin'" municipal court, the system is completely broken. Courts must not be owned and run by one side (an extremely biased side) in the conflict. It wouldn't work in a private system and it doesn't work in a coercive system either.
I know someone who was on a municipal jury very recently. Through negligence (or possibly a third party's mischief) a city ordinance was violated and harm was caused to the property of another. This juror I speak of was under the impression that she was required to agree with the other jurors just because "we had to all agree on something; one person couldn't disagree or we wouldn't reach a verdict".
The defendant was obviously responsible for the damages. Not even he really claimed otherwise. He should have paid restitution and that should have been the end of it. However, that was not among the options the jury was presented with. "Guilty" or "not guilty" were the choices, and, if guilty, how big a "fine" must he pay?- and "zero" was not allowed. The "city" suffered no harm and was due no restitution, and certainly wasn't owed any loot because of someone else's misfortune. Restitution to the actual injured party wasn't on the table and was "a separate issue", sayeth the judge. The injured party will have to sue this man for restitution, according to the judge, if they wish to be compensated.
In this case, and under the rules as they were set forth, obviously I would have had to judge the man "not guilty" even if it would have made it more difficult for the actual injured party to collect restitution later. The city would have lost out had I been on the jury. Which is probably why, as I have been told, no one would ever allow me on a jury.
**************************
Please, become intimately familiar with the Fully Informed Jury Association and tell everyone you know, especially if they are up for jury duty, about their right to judge the "law" regardless of the judge's biased instructions.
____________________________
Albuquerque authoriturds have once again stuck their noses where they could get bit. This time, rather than "too many cats" it is "too many" snakes. Yes, the mother probably should take better care of her kids. It is probably dumb to send you kids into a government indoctrination center smelling like urine (or like roses, for that matter) unless you want to attract "official attention". But "too many snakes" is not a decision for anyone but the people living under the roof to make.
Something absolutely has to be done about the "justice system". Seriously. From the Supreme Court "affirming a right" while pretending it is merely a privilege which can be tailored to suit the wishes of the corrupt and frightened Rulers (Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. There is no wiggle-room, you black-robed taterheads!), to the most "piddlin'" municipal court, the system is completely broken. Courts must not be owned and run by one side (an extremely biased side) in the conflict. It wouldn't work in a private system and it doesn't work in a coercive system either.
I know someone who was on a municipal jury very recently. Through negligence (or possibly a third party's mischief) a city ordinance was violated and harm was caused to the property of another. This juror I speak of was under the impression that she was required to agree with the other jurors just because "we had to all agree on something; one person couldn't disagree or we wouldn't reach a verdict".
The defendant was obviously responsible for the damages. Not even he really claimed otherwise. He should have paid restitution and that should have been the end of it. However, that was not among the options the jury was presented with. "Guilty" or "not guilty" were the choices, and, if guilty, how big a "fine" must he pay?- and "zero" was not allowed. The "city" suffered no harm and was due no restitution, and certainly wasn't owed any loot because of someone else's misfortune. Restitution to the actual injured party wasn't on the table and was "a separate issue", sayeth the judge. The injured party will have to sue this man for restitution, according to the judge, if they wish to be compensated.
In this case, and under the rules as they were set forth, obviously I would have had to judge the man "not guilty" even if it would have made it more difficult for the actual injured party to collect restitution later. The city would have lost out had I been on the jury. Which is probably why, as I have been told, no one would ever allow me on a jury.
**************************
Please, become intimately familiar with the Fully Informed Jury Association and tell everyone you know, especially if they are up for jury duty, about their right to judge the "law" regardless of the judge's biased instructions.
____________________________
Albuquerque authoriturds have once again stuck their noses where they could get bit. This time, rather than "too many cats" it is "too many" snakes. Yes, the mother probably should take better care of her kids. It is probably dumb to send you kids into a government indoctrination center smelling like urine (or like roses, for that matter) unless you want to attract "official attention". But "too many snakes" is not a decision for anyone but the people living under the roof to make.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Should religion be illegal- like 'drugs'?
Should religion be illegal- like 'drugs'?
Should religion be illegal? From a purely rational point of view, based upon actual harm done, criminalizing religion makes more sense than does criminalizing "drugs". Religion is more likely to be forced upon an unwilling person than "drugs" are, despite the "drug warrior" propaganda to the contrary. However, I do not advocate criminalizing either one. That would just be wrong. It is not within the authority of any person (or group of people) to decide what any other person does with his own body or mind as long as no innocents are being harmed by the actions. No matter how strongly you disagree or how reasonable your disagreements are.
Drugs and religions have a lot in common (and in some cases are literally one and the same). Both have the effect of making their users feel good- and both can make their users feel really bad, especially when abused or when an addiction occurs. Both are often belittled and demonized by people who do not use them, and who therefore do not understand the pleasures that their users feel. Perhaps there is something in the wiring of the human brain that makes a person more susceptible or more resistant to such effects. It wouldn't surprise me.
Any honest accounting would show that religions have hurt and/or killed more people than drugs have. Yet, neither one must inevitably cause harm. Only through misuse or obsession does the harm follow.
As long as you don't hold me down and force me to ingest a drug, or work to get your religious ideals enshrined in "law" in an attempt to force me to behave as though I agree with you, what you do to your own body and mind are none of my business. No matter how wonderful or self-destructive your behavior may be. You are the rightful owner of your own body and life, and ownership means you have the right to use, and even destroy, that which you own.
___________________________
The Albuquerque Water cops are overworked. Poor little Jackboots. Yet, the real tragedy in the story is that they find their victims because of tips from "neighbors". No good person would ever report someone for using "too much water". As I have said before, if water is being wasted, it is a sign it is under priced. Market forces, including scarcity, should determine the "proper price" and eliminate waste. End the government monopoly on the Albuquerque water supply and watch the problem evaporate.
Should religion be illegal? From a purely rational point of view, based upon actual harm done, criminalizing religion makes more sense than does criminalizing "drugs". Religion is more likely to be forced upon an unwilling person than "drugs" are, despite the "drug warrior" propaganda to the contrary. However, I do not advocate criminalizing either one. That would just be wrong. It is not within the authority of any person (or group of people) to decide what any other person does with his own body or mind as long as no innocents are being harmed by the actions. No matter how strongly you disagree or how reasonable your disagreements are.
Drugs and religions have a lot in common (and in some cases are literally one and the same). Both have the effect of making their users feel good- and both can make their users feel really bad, especially when abused or when an addiction occurs. Both are often belittled and demonized by people who do not use them, and who therefore do not understand the pleasures that their users feel. Perhaps there is something in the wiring of the human brain that makes a person more susceptible or more resistant to such effects. It wouldn't surprise me.
Any honest accounting would show that religions have hurt and/or killed more people than drugs have. Yet, neither one must inevitably cause harm. Only through misuse or obsession does the harm follow.
As long as you don't hold me down and force me to ingest a drug, or work to get your religious ideals enshrined in "law" in an attempt to force me to behave as though I agree with you, what you do to your own body and mind are none of my business. No matter how wonderful or self-destructive your behavior may be. You are the rightful owner of your own body and life, and ownership means you have the right to use, and even destroy, that which you own.
___________________________
The Albuquerque Water cops are overworked. Poor little Jackboots. Yet, the real tragedy in the story is that they find their victims because of tips from "neighbors". No good person would ever report someone for using "too much water". As I have said before, if water is being wasted, it is a sign it is under priced. Market forces, including scarcity, should determine the "proper price" and eliminate waste. End the government monopoly on the Albuquerque water supply and watch the problem evaporate.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Girl kills attackers, but statists miss the point
I got an email that I would like to share. Along with my commentary. First, the email:
Now the commentary.
Good for her! I love it when the good guys win by killing the bad guys. I wish all such attacks ended so nicely. But... How in the bloody blazes could it possibly matter in the slightest where the attackers came from?
Would it be better to be murdered or raped by a person from your home town or your own "state"? It is ignorant and stupid to pretend that the origins of a bad guy are even part of the equation. This is just an attempt to distract people from the real issue: aggression. It is a lie. It is evil.
A cop killed during a drug raid is just as much a parasitical vermin as an "illegal immigrant" killed during an attempted rape/murder is. His death is just as much a cause for celebration. The actions and the intentions make the only difference that exists.
An "illegal immigrant" IS an independent migrant, and a "drug dealer" IS an unlicensed pharmacist. Only statists, who falsely believe "The State" is more important than the individual, would see it any other way. Disgusting!
BUTTE, MONTANA
Shotgun preteen vs. Home Invaders : Illegal alien Butte,
Montana, November 5 , 2009
Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26,
probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old
Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.
It seems the two crooks never learned two things:
they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since
she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men
broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's
room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor
only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from
the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his
abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the
stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the
street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It
was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber
handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That
victim, 50-year-old David O'Burien, was not so lucky. He died from
stab wounds to the chest.
Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC ,
CBS , PBS , MSNBC , CNN, or ABC
news........an 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and
herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants......and she
wins, She is still alive.
Now that is Gun Control !
Thought for the day: Calling an illegal alien an
'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an
'unlicensed pharmacist'
This is a good e-mail message.
American citizens defending themselves and their homes.
HAVE A GREAT DAY !
Now the commentary.
Good for her! I love it when the good guys win by killing the bad guys. I wish all such attacks ended so nicely. But... How in the bloody blazes could it possibly matter in the slightest where the attackers came from?
Would it be better to be murdered or raped by a person from your home town or your own "state"? It is ignorant and stupid to pretend that the origins of a bad guy are even part of the equation. This is just an attempt to distract people from the real issue: aggression. It is a lie. It is evil.
A cop killed during a drug raid is just as much a parasitical vermin as an "illegal immigrant" killed during an attempted rape/murder is. His death is just as much a cause for celebration. The actions and the intentions make the only difference that exists.
An "illegal immigrant" IS an independent migrant, and a "drug dealer" IS an unlicensed pharmacist. Only statists, who falsely believe "The State" is more important than the individual, would see it any other way. Disgusting!
Substitutes for substance
Substitutes for substance
"Patriotism" and "citizenship" are often used as substitutes for principles, like religion and "morality" are used as substitutes for living an ethical life. In either case, ritual is relied upon rather than doing what is right.
Waving a flag or worshiping the Constitution is no substitute for standing up for the principle of respecting the rights of all people in all situations. The Constitution is OK in some ways, but it still authorizes evil in others. The US flag (notice that it is most assuredly NOT "the American flag") has been co-opted by the federal government, and flying it is normally seen as an endorsement of that government. This "federal flag" stands against everything America should be, and has done so since before the "Civil War". Let the statists have their symbol.
Most advocates of "good citizenship" are advocating that you and I obey the Constitution and support the "Constitutional actions" of the US government- at least as long as it does what they think it should be doing- whether those actions are right or wrong. A "good citizen" is expected to waste effort by working "within the system" when bad things are done by those in that "system". It doesn't work, and if it did it would be made "illegal".
Giving up your own conscience and letting the State dictate your principles may be easy, but it will not lead you where you need to be. The destination will shift with each new crisis the State invents. That crisis may be "illegal immigrants" or "drugs" or "crime". It may be your religion or your guns. It will always be about someone's liberty. As long as you stand up for liberty for all in every situation, you will never be led astray.
I always try to put thought into where I place my support. I don't do what I am told, unless what I am told is in line with my principles. It means I may have to think more, and consider things more deeply. That's OK. Thinking is good exercise. Accepting as truth what you are told, by those who are holding you at gunpoint and have a vested interest in deceiving you, is not smart. But, as in all things, don't take my word for it. Think for yourself.
______________________
The bad "immigration law" from Arizona is already causing an influx of immigrants into the Albuquerque area. I'd be willing to bet it is not only "illegal immigrants"- or even necessarily immigrants at all. If I were Hispanic-appearing, and I lived in Arizona, I'd probably want out before the "law" went into effect, too. Let Arizona's loss be Albuquerque's gain. And, as always, if aggressive individuals follow the crowd to New Mexico, as the fear-mongers claim is happening, let people use justified self-defense and eliminate them from the population. It's the civilized thing to do. Remember, New Mexico is a "Gold Star" open-carry state. So do it.
"Patriotism" and "citizenship" are often used as substitutes for principles, like religion and "morality" are used as substitutes for living an ethical life. In either case, ritual is relied upon rather than doing what is right.
Waving a flag or worshiping the Constitution is no substitute for standing up for the principle of respecting the rights of all people in all situations. The Constitution is OK in some ways, but it still authorizes evil in others. The US flag (notice that it is most assuredly NOT "the American flag") has been co-opted by the federal government, and flying it is normally seen as an endorsement of that government. This "federal flag" stands against everything America should be, and has done so since before the "Civil War". Let the statists have their symbol.
Most advocates of "good citizenship" are advocating that you and I obey the Constitution and support the "Constitutional actions" of the US government- at least as long as it does what they think it should be doing- whether those actions are right or wrong. A "good citizen" is expected to waste effort by working "within the system" when bad things are done by those in that "system". It doesn't work, and if it did it would be made "illegal".
Giving up your own conscience and letting the State dictate your principles may be easy, but it will not lead you where you need to be. The destination will shift with each new crisis the State invents. That crisis may be "illegal immigrants" or "drugs" or "crime". It may be your religion or your guns. It will always be about someone's liberty. As long as you stand up for liberty for all in every situation, you will never be led astray.
I always try to put thought into where I place my support. I don't do what I am told, unless what I am told is in line with my principles. It means I may have to think more, and consider things more deeply. That's OK. Thinking is good exercise. Accepting as truth what you are told, by those who are holding you at gunpoint and have a vested interest in deceiving you, is not smart. But, as in all things, don't take my word for it. Think for yourself.
______________________
The bad "immigration law" from Arizona is already causing an influx of immigrants into the Albuquerque area. I'd be willing to bet it is not only "illegal immigrants"- or even necessarily immigrants at all. If I were Hispanic-appearing, and I lived in Arizona, I'd probably want out before the "law" went into effect, too. Let Arizona's loss be Albuquerque's gain. And, as always, if aggressive individuals follow the crowd to New Mexico, as the fear-mongers claim is happening, let people use justified self-defense and eliminate them from the population. It's the civilized thing to do. Remember, New Mexico is a "Gold Star" open-carry state. So do it.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Who kills your freedom?
Who kills your freedom?
Do you know why I am not obsessed over government and its war on liberty? Because government can't force you to do, or not do, anything unless one of its agents is holding a gun on you right now. And government does not have enough thugs or guns to control us all. It relies on "governing" you in most cases. Only you can consent to be governed- or not.
Government is not stopping you from being free. Only you can do that to yourself. Government may raise the costs, and may put every stumbling block possible in your way. It will threaten you if you dare take responsibility for your own life, against its wishes and "laws". You can choose to express your liberty anyway. Do it in secret today in order to become more skilled for tomorrow. Remember: you and I are already federal "felons", whether we intended to be or not; we might as well make the most of our outlawry.
If you are not willing to live free, within your rights, with a meddling government looking over your shoulder today, how do you expect to live free when the crow-picked corpses of those petty officials are decorating lampposts everywhere, but freelance thugs have replaced them?
Someone will always want to prevent you from enjoying your liberty. Bad people like these will always exist. Get used to dealing with them.
If you can't get away with "open carry", carry concealed and do your best to not get caught- or grovel for a permit and allow some thug to act as though your right is a privilege. If you feel you "must" have licenses and permits for driving, building, conducting business, or whatever right the State decides to violate tomorrow, get a little dyslexia or dyscalculia when filling out forms begging government to allow you to live within your rights. If you wish to enjoy prohibited pleasures, learn how to not "look guilty", because you are doing nothing wrong and have no cause to feel guilty. And learn to avoid or ignore those tools of the State, wherever you find them, who would gleefully throw you to the wolves.
Start today. There will never be a better time.
____________________________
Federal anti-gun agents in Albuquerque are looking for a nineteen year-old suspect who eluded them after they completed their scam. "Firearms" and "drugs" are not under the authority of any government control, according to the Constitution and, more importantly, the principles of liberty. Yet, these are about the only "crimes" mentioned as justification for the planned kidnapping. Actually, some of the guns the Feds "purchased" are said to have been stolen, and those guns should be returned to their proper owners immediately. However, the Feds, by putting out the word they were in the market for the guns, are accomplices in the thefts and they should be held individually accountable. I'm not holding my breath. But, I will remember.
Do you know why I am not obsessed over government and its war on liberty? Because government can't force you to do, or not do, anything unless one of its agents is holding a gun on you right now. And government does not have enough thugs or guns to control us all. It relies on "governing" you in most cases. Only you can consent to be governed- or not.
Government is not stopping you from being free. Only you can do that to yourself. Government may raise the costs, and may put every stumbling block possible in your way. It will threaten you if you dare take responsibility for your own life, against its wishes and "laws". You can choose to express your liberty anyway. Do it in secret today in order to become more skilled for tomorrow. Remember: you and I are already federal "felons", whether we intended to be or not; we might as well make the most of our outlawry.
If you are not willing to live free, within your rights, with a meddling government looking over your shoulder today, how do you expect to live free when the crow-picked corpses of those petty officials are decorating lampposts everywhere, but freelance thugs have replaced them?
Someone will always want to prevent you from enjoying your liberty. Bad people like these will always exist. Get used to dealing with them.
If you can't get away with "open carry", carry concealed and do your best to not get caught- or grovel for a permit and allow some thug to act as though your right is a privilege. If you feel you "must" have licenses and permits for driving, building, conducting business, or whatever right the State decides to violate tomorrow, get a little dyslexia or dyscalculia when filling out forms begging government to allow you to live within your rights. If you wish to enjoy prohibited pleasures, learn how to not "look guilty", because you are doing nothing wrong and have no cause to feel guilty. And learn to avoid or ignore those tools of the State, wherever you find them, who would gleefully throw you to the wolves.
Start today. There will never be a better time.
____________________________
Federal anti-gun agents in Albuquerque are looking for a nineteen year-old suspect who eluded them after they completed their scam. "Firearms" and "drugs" are not under the authority of any government control, according to the Constitution and, more importantly, the principles of liberty. Yet, these are about the only "crimes" mentioned as justification for the planned kidnapping. Actually, some of the guns the Feds "purchased" are said to have been stolen, and those guns should be returned to their proper owners immediately. However, the Feds, by putting out the word they were in the market for the guns, are accomplices in the thefts and they should be held individually accountable. I'm not holding my breath. But, I will remember.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Stand up for your enemy's rights to protect your own
Stand up for your enemy's rights to protect your own
A person can not "lose" his rights as long as he is alive. Not by becoming an attacker nor through any other action. A privilege can be lost; a right is part of the fundamental makeup of a human being. You can no more lose a right than you can become a ostrich.
This is something that didn't occur to me for a very long time, but once I realized it (just in the past couple of years), I wondered why it was so difficult to see. Perhaps because it is inconvenient. It is so much easier to excuse certain abuses if you can pretend that by his wrong actions a person has lost certain rights. But this is dishonest and leads to destructive "laws" and faulty justifications.
In the case of an aggressor- he has no right to attack the innocent, but both he and his victim have a right to defend themselves from the other. In more personal terms: a person attacking me has an absolute human right to defend his own life from my self-defense. In fact, although I hope he fails, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that outcome, I have no respect for thugs who simply submit rather than fight back.
Obviously, I would prefer that all aggressors lose the battle every time. However, it is not possible to claim that I have the right to judge whether another person has "lost" his rights without handing that same authority over my own rights to someone else. Just handle the attack.
If the person who attacked is the survivor he is subject to restitution, shunning, and whatever else sovereign individuals in a free society might do, but his choice to defend himself shouldn't be part of the equation. This is why I think "criminals" have an obligation to resist arrest and to attempt to escape from custody, and why I despise the dishonest practice of adding that natural response to their list of offenses.
This is also one reason why I oppose "laws" that prohibit "criminals" from possessing guns. The other part of that reason is that I see who is allowed to define "criminal", and I don't agree with their agenda nor do I recognize their authority, even in the case of "my enemy". There is no way to violate some other person's rights without damaging your own. I need no nanny.
___________________________
In Albuquerque news- A young cyclist who was riding cross-country to raise money for breast cancer (research, I'm hoping, although the story doesn't actually say that) died after being hit by a car. This is a tragic end to a proper response to a problem. Charity, not government subsidies. Voluntarily is always better than coerced.
Another very disturbing thing to me is how many commenters on that story are calling for the car's driver to be punished. Not every tragedy or accident "needs" to be criminalized. Yet, the facts are not even public and people are out for blood. That is wrong and sad.
A person can not "lose" his rights as long as he is alive. Not by becoming an attacker nor through any other action. A privilege can be lost; a right is part of the fundamental makeup of a human being. You can no more lose a right than you can become a ostrich.
This is something that didn't occur to me for a very long time, but once I realized it (just in the past couple of years), I wondered why it was so difficult to see. Perhaps because it is inconvenient. It is so much easier to excuse certain abuses if you can pretend that by his wrong actions a person has lost certain rights. But this is dishonest and leads to destructive "laws" and faulty justifications.
In the case of an aggressor- he has no right to attack the innocent, but both he and his victim have a right to defend themselves from the other. In more personal terms: a person attacking me has an absolute human right to defend his own life from my self-defense. In fact, although I hope he fails, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that outcome, I have no respect for thugs who simply submit rather than fight back.
Obviously, I would prefer that all aggressors lose the battle every time. However, it is not possible to claim that I have the right to judge whether another person has "lost" his rights without handing that same authority over my own rights to someone else. Just handle the attack.
If the person who attacked is the survivor he is subject to restitution, shunning, and whatever else sovereign individuals in a free society might do, but his choice to defend himself shouldn't be part of the equation. This is why I think "criminals" have an obligation to resist arrest and to attempt to escape from custody, and why I despise the dishonest practice of adding that natural response to their list of offenses.
This is also one reason why I oppose "laws" that prohibit "criminals" from possessing guns. The other part of that reason is that I see who is allowed to define "criminal", and I don't agree with their agenda nor do I recognize their authority, even in the case of "my enemy". There is no way to violate some other person's rights without damaging your own. I need no nanny.
___________________________
In Albuquerque news- A young cyclist who was riding cross-country to raise money for breast cancer (research, I'm hoping, although the story doesn't actually say that) died after being hit by a car. This is a tragic end to a proper response to a problem. Charity, not government subsidies. Voluntarily is always better than coerced.
Another very disturbing thing to me is how many commenters on that story are calling for the car's driver to be punished. Not every tragedy or accident "needs" to be criminalized. Yet, the facts are not even public and people are out for blood. That is wrong and sad.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Entitled to your money: Day care protests
Entitled to your money: Day care protests
Did you know that you are responsible for paying to take care of other people's children? A group of families in Albuquerque want you to know that they believe you are, and they are protesting to make their point.
Budget problems have caused the state to reduce the income eligibility for state-subsidized day care by half, and some parents are upset.
This isn't about "day care"; it's about day care that is paid for by someone else. When did this become any business of the government at any level? "Never" is when. Either these parents forget, or never understood, that nothing from government is "free". If government gives it to you, government stole it from someone else.
If you hand your* children over to the government, which is what this amounts to, then don't be shocked when that government acts as though it owns them in other circumstances. This "free day care" has strings attached, as do all government "hand-outs". It costs you your self-ownership, your dignity, and your liberty. It would surprise me if it didn't cost you every last scrap of your self-respect, too.
I'm sorry that some people don't feel they are able to care for their kids (and yet have them regardless). I make "sacrifices" and stay home to raise my daughter. No one can love her or care for her better than me. Sometimes, because of my choice, I can't afford things I think I "need". I would like the luxury of having more money, but I am not under the mistaken impression that it is your responsibility to pay for day care for my daughter so that I can hold a job outside my home. Of course, if you have a job offer for me that fits with my "talents" and circumstances, please let me know. I could definitely use the money.
_______________________________
*"your" and other words like it, in this case, do not denote ownership, but relationship. Such as "your friend" or "my sister" or "her daughter". Some people get a little twitchy about that distinction.
Did you know that you are responsible for paying to take care of other people's children? A group of families in Albuquerque want you to know that they believe you are, and they are protesting to make their point.
Budget problems have caused the state to reduce the income eligibility for state-subsidized day care by half, and some parents are upset.
This isn't about "day care"; it's about day care that is paid for by someone else. When did this become any business of the government at any level? "Never" is when. Either these parents forget, or never understood, that nothing from government is "free". If government gives it to you, government stole it from someone else.
If you hand your* children over to the government, which is what this amounts to, then don't be shocked when that government acts as though it owns them in other circumstances. This "free day care" has strings attached, as do all government "hand-outs". It costs you your self-ownership, your dignity, and your liberty. It would surprise me if it didn't cost you every last scrap of your self-respect, too.
I'm sorry that some people don't feel they are able to care for their kids (and yet have them regardless). I make "sacrifices" and stay home to raise my daughter. No one can love her or care for her better than me. Sometimes, because of my choice, I can't afford things I think I "need". I would like the luxury of having more money, but I am not under the mistaken impression that it is your responsibility to pay for day care for my daughter so that I can hold a job outside my home. Of course, if you have a job offer for me that fits with my "talents" and circumstances, please let me know. I could definitely use the money.
_______________________________
*"your" and other words like it, in this case, do not denote ownership, but relationship. Such as "your friend" or "my sister" or "her daughter". Some people get a little twitchy about that distinction.
Rodent fun.
Here is a video I made today of a thirteen-lined ground squirrel at a park in Clovis NM. Posted for no particular reason, other than I enjoyed watching it.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Aggression by proxy
Aggression by proxy
I was recently told of a situation that illustrates a few different points I try to make. I got this third-hand, so reality may differ significantly from how it was told to me. In any case, this is the situation as it was related to me:
Now, once you sell a piece of property, as long as the buyer hasn't defaulted on the sale, what he is doing there is none of your business as long as he is not harming you. His meth lab, while you may not like it, is not an actual threat or harm. Unless you buy into the silly propaganda that it is some sort of "nuclear threat" that the "brave" drug warriors want to pretend it is in order to scare you into compliance with their "laws". So, in my opinion, in this case calling the LEOs was wrong, and a violation of the Zero Aggression Principle.
Plus, it didn't even "work" since the cops did not follow through with the desired act of aggression.
Actions have consequences. If you attempt to attack someone, in person or "by proxy"- by sending government against them, they have a right to use violence or the threat of violence in their own defense. Both against the agents of government, and against the person who uses government as a weapon against them. Just because in this case the weapon suffered a "misfire" doesn't alter the fact that a deadly weapon was aimed and the trigger was pulled.
Did the new owner of the property over-react? Possibly. Was the threat credible and immediate enough to warrant an act of self-defense? I'm not certain since I wasn't there. Is the accused meth manufacturer an otherwise delightful and honorable person? Probably not, since prohibition ensures that only people who are willing to take certain risks and use certain methods to protect themselves and their market will get into the business.
All I know for certain is that if this became a court case, the previous owners of the property would not want me sitting on a jury since I consider using government, in violation of the ZAP, a "wrong", and the mere production of governmentally-prohibited chemicals to be an ethically neutral act. As it stands now, I'd consider the two sides "even".
_________________________
An Albuquerque woman talks about her abduction and how lucky she was that it ended when a LEO shot her kidnapper. Yes, she was lucky. A whole series of fortunate events had to occur for her to come out alive.
I hope she learned from this that she is responsible for her own safety and will never again allow herself to be helpless in the face of evil. Regardless of "laws" or "society's" expectations. When you realize you need a tool with which to defend yourself it is already too late. You can't always count on your attacker having a screwdriver within your reach or on someone else who has a proper self-defense tool showing up in time. Lucky last time; smart next time?
I was recently told of a situation that illustrates a few different points I try to make. I got this third-hand, so reality may differ significantly from how it was told to me. In any case, this is the situation as it was related to me:
Someone sold a section of land adjacent to their home. The buyer then set
up a meth lab in the middle of that property. When the previous owners
found out they called the cops. For whatever reason the cops did
nothing. Then the new owner came to the previous owner and threatened to
kill him for reporting him to the cops.
Now, once you sell a piece of property, as long as the buyer hasn't defaulted on the sale, what he is doing there is none of your business as long as he is not harming you. His meth lab, while you may not like it, is not an actual threat or harm. Unless you buy into the silly propaganda that it is some sort of "nuclear threat" that the "brave" drug warriors want to pretend it is in order to scare you into compliance with their "laws". So, in my opinion, in this case calling the LEOs was wrong, and a violation of the Zero Aggression Principle.
Plus, it didn't even "work" since the cops did not follow through with the desired act of aggression.
Actions have consequences. If you attempt to attack someone, in person or "by proxy"- by sending government against them, they have a right to use violence or the threat of violence in their own defense. Both against the agents of government, and against the person who uses government as a weapon against them. Just because in this case the weapon suffered a "misfire" doesn't alter the fact that a deadly weapon was aimed and the trigger was pulled.
Did the new owner of the property over-react? Possibly. Was the threat credible and immediate enough to warrant an act of self-defense? I'm not certain since I wasn't there. Is the accused meth manufacturer an otherwise delightful and honorable person? Probably not, since prohibition ensures that only people who are willing to take certain risks and use certain methods to protect themselves and their market will get into the business.
All I know for certain is that if this became a court case, the previous owners of the property would not want me sitting on a jury since I consider using government, in violation of the ZAP, a "wrong", and the mere production of governmentally-prohibited chemicals to be an ethically neutral act. As it stands now, I'd consider the two sides "even".
_________________________
An Albuquerque woman talks about her abduction and how lucky she was that it ended when a LEO shot her kidnapper. Yes, she was lucky. A whole series of fortunate events had to occur for her to come out alive.
I hope she learned from this that she is responsible for her own safety and will never again allow herself to be helpless in the face of evil. Regardless of "laws" or "society's" expectations. When you realize you need a tool with which to defend yourself it is already too late. You can't always count on your attacker having a screwdriver within your reach or on someone else who has a proper self-defense tool showing up in time. Lucky last time; smart next time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)