Opposites, but both still wrong
The two "mainstream" politicians who are trying to fool you into consenting to one of them being appointed governor of New Mexico express their opinions on "social issues" in this article from Albuquerque's KOB.com: link
I could go down point-by-point to show where they are both completely, pathetically wrong, even when one seemingly "supports" the correct side (usually Denish, on these issues). I'll assume you are smart enough to do that on your own if you care about the opinions of a couple of authoritarian sociopaths. (But feel free to discuss specifics in the comments below if you feel I am being too harsh, or can't see where one is wrong.)
There is really only one "social issue"- the right to live without being molested. Everything derives from that. Voting for a politician only ensures that someone, somewhere, will be molested in the name of "The Greater Good".
That molestation may be a consequence of a "drug law". It may result from some violation of property rights, such as a "property code" or a license plate "requirement", or a property "tax". That molestation may come when a reasonable, self-responsible person is kidnapped for keeping and "bearing" (which means carrying) a firearm. It may come from double standards which make the same act "legal" in some situations for some people, and "illegal" in similar situations for other people.
There is no real way to separate "social issues" from "economic issues". It is only about liberty. Liberty is completely entangled and inseparable. It is a tapestry that is damaged by trying to pull out any one thread as an exception. Violations of your "social rights" are also violations of your "economic rights", and vice versa. To pretend there is a dichotomy is dishonest and is only of benefit to those who with to rule and enslave others. Don't fall for it. Don't vote.
*
Donate?
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Will a mugging wake a politician up to reality?
Will a mugging wake a politician up to reality?
(And this is one of those times I actually have the meat of the post after the obligatory ABQ stuff.)
State Senator Mary Jane Garcia was mugged and robbed September 16 outside of a hotel in Albuquerque. So, although she seems to be recovering, she now considers herself a victim who is entitled to sue the hotel because they didn't have security guards patrolling around the hotel that day. Never mind that her safety is first and foremost her own responsibility.
She has said that as a result of the mugging she is more aware of the affects of criminal violence, and that she intends to be much more active in promoting "support for victims". She says she wants "women to be more aware of what they can do to protect themselves". Good. I expect to see her become very active in fighting the repeal of "laws" that make it harder for people to own and to carry weapons with them everywhere they go. If she does anything else, she is a liar and a hypocrite. And a typical statist.
Speaking of statists:
Some people can't tell the difference between being coerced and having someone else refuse to be coerced. It seems strange, but it's true.
My young daughter gets mad when she wants me to do something that I am not willing to do at the moment. I wanted to eat lunch today and she had a fit because she didn't want me to stop playing to eat. I told her she could keep playing but I needed to eat. My choice didn't really affect her in any way other than the fact that for a while she'd need to play alone. I had to assert my right to act for myself.
I have also had other people in my life whose attitudes were no more mature than that. As an example: one woman I was involved with insisted on going to karaoke with me, even though she hated going and did nothing but cry, complain, and whine (except when she was trying to start fights) while there. Obviously, I would have preferred she not go. In other circumstances, when she wanted to force me to go somewhere I didn't want to go or do something I was not willing to do, she would say "But you force me to go to karaoke with you and I HATE it!" No, I simply was going and she insisted on going along to make sure I didn't enjoy myself too much. Her choice. When I mentioned that there was a big difference between forcing someone to do something, and refusing to let someone force me to not do it, she would sulk.
The same is true of so many other people in "society". They hate guns so they try to claim it is an imposition on them if I carry one. They support the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs and claim it imposes on them if someone destroys themselves by abusing some substance. They claim that since they are forced to get government permits for certain activities, everyone else should have their liberty violated in the same way. It is a very childish attitude, to be sure.
*
Donate?
(And this is one of those times I actually have the meat of the post after the obligatory ABQ stuff.)
State Senator Mary Jane Garcia was mugged and robbed September 16 outside of a hotel in Albuquerque. So, although she seems to be recovering, she now considers herself a victim who is entitled to sue the hotel because they didn't have security guards patrolling around the hotel that day. Never mind that her safety is first and foremost her own responsibility.
She has said that as a result of the mugging she is more aware of the affects of criminal violence, and that she intends to be much more active in promoting "support for victims". She says she wants "women to be more aware of what they can do to protect themselves". Good. I expect to see her become very active in fighting the repeal of "laws" that make it harder for people to own and to carry weapons with them everywhere they go. If she does anything else, she is a liar and a hypocrite. And a typical statist.
Speaking of statists:
Some people can't tell the difference between being coerced and having someone else refuse to be coerced. It seems strange, but it's true.
My young daughter gets mad when she wants me to do something that I am not willing to do at the moment. I wanted to eat lunch today and she had a fit because she didn't want me to stop playing to eat. I told her she could keep playing but I needed to eat. My choice didn't really affect her in any way other than the fact that for a while she'd need to play alone. I had to assert my right to act for myself.
I have also had other people in my life whose attitudes were no more mature than that. As an example: one woman I was involved with insisted on going to karaoke with me, even though she hated going and did nothing but cry, complain, and whine (except when she was trying to start fights) while there. Obviously, I would have preferred she not go. In other circumstances, when she wanted to force me to go somewhere I didn't want to go or do something I was not willing to do, she would say "But you force me to go to karaoke with you and I HATE it!" No, I simply was going and she insisted on going along to make sure I didn't enjoy myself too much. Her choice. When I mentioned that there was a big difference between forcing someone to do something, and refusing to let someone force me to not do it, she would sulk.
The same is true of so many other people in "society". They hate guns so they try to claim it is an imposition on them if I carry one. They support the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs and claim it imposes on them if someone destroys themselves by abusing some substance. They claim that since they are forced to get government permits for certain activities, everyone else should have their liberty violated in the same way. It is a very childish attitude, to be sure.
*
Donate?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
'Drug deal-gone-bad' or business-as-usual statism?
'Drug deal-gone-bad' or business-as-usual statism?
A man was shot multiple times and killed in what authorities are calling a suspected "drug deal-gone-bad" in Albuquerque.
I have worked in businesses where deals are made all the time. Mostly I worked in pet stores. I don't remember any neon tetra deals that "went bad". Why did none of those deals go bad and result in murders? Why do only "drug deals" seem to precipitate this kind of aggression? Oh, yeah: prohibition.
*
Donate?
A man was shot multiple times and killed in what authorities are calling a suspected "drug deal-gone-bad" in Albuquerque.
I have worked in businesses where deals are made all the time. Mostly I worked in pet stores. I don't remember any neon tetra deals that "went bad". Why did none of those deals go bad and result in murders? Why do only "drug deals" seem to precipitate this kind of aggression? Oh, yeah: prohibition.
*
Donate?
Resistance is not futile
Resistance is not futile
A nine-year old Albuquerque girl says she was grabbed and put into a van, and that she escaped by jumping out and running. I'm not sure why, but I'm just a tiny bit suspicious of the story. However, I will take it at face value since it illustrates some truth, and since I have no real reason to doubt her.
Her detailed description of the man and his vehicle (a white man in his late 50s with a heavy build - dark hair; balding on top - a black beard - driving a white van with a taped up passenger side window) should make it easy to find him.
I'm glad she did not obey this adult. Kids need to be taught that not only is resistance NOT futile, it is essential. They need to be taught that cooperating with someone who wants to harm them is not the right thing to do. Resist smart by watching for opportunities and taking a chance. It is easier to prevent a situation than to escape once you have let a bad guy get control. The time to make a scene, gouge eyes, kick crotches, break things, and generally misbehave is before you are under the control of the ones who intend you harm. Do not allow yourselves to be herded into a room by a thug determined to take you hostage. Do not hesitate to hurt a kidnapper in any way you can.
Statists might balk a bit at this advice since it would be harder to brainwash children into accepting false differences between freelance monsters and those who work for The State than it is to get "adults" to fall for that particular lie.
*
Donate?
A nine-year old Albuquerque girl says she was grabbed and put into a van, and that she escaped by jumping out and running. I'm not sure why, but I'm just a tiny bit suspicious of the story. However, I will take it at face value since it illustrates some truth, and since I have no real reason to doubt her.
Her detailed description of the man and his vehicle (a white man in his late 50s with a heavy build - dark hair; balding on top - a black beard - driving a white van with a taped up passenger side window) should make it easy to find him.
I'm glad she did not obey this adult. Kids need to be taught that not only is resistance NOT futile, it is essential. They need to be taught that cooperating with someone who wants to harm them is not the right thing to do. Resist smart by watching for opportunities and taking a chance. It is easier to prevent a situation than to escape once you have let a bad guy get control. The time to make a scene, gouge eyes, kick crotches, break things, and generally misbehave is before you are under the control of the ones who intend you harm. Do not allow yourselves to be herded into a room by a thug determined to take you hostage. Do not hesitate to hurt a kidnapper in any way you can.
Statists might balk a bit at this advice since it would be harder to brainwash children into accepting false differences between freelance monsters and those who work for The State than it is to get "adults" to fall for that particular lie.
*
Donate?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
'Police brutality' protest in ABQ
'Police brutality' protest in ABQ
Yesterday dozens of people protested police brutality outside the Albuquerque Police Department Headquarters, as part of an annual event held on October 22. Specifically, they were protesting fatal shootings by officers, although this is only the tip of the iceberg. The majority of police brutality isn't fatal.
Anytime a person is grabbed, accosted, questioned, or "arrested" for doing something other than initiating force, fraud, theft, or possibly trespassing, he is a victim of police brutality.
And the tragic truth of the matter is some of those who were fatally shot by police needed to be shot. That it was a cop doing the shooting is beside the point.
Then these protesters watered down their stance even further by saying they are not "anti-cop". As the system is now set up, and until they implement my reforms, I am anti-cop. Any decent person has to be.
*
Donate?
Yesterday dozens of people protested police brutality outside the Albuquerque Police Department Headquarters, as part of an annual event held on October 22. Specifically, they were protesting fatal shootings by officers, although this is only the tip of the iceberg. The majority of police brutality isn't fatal.
Anytime a person is grabbed, accosted, questioned, or "arrested" for doing something other than initiating force, fraud, theft, or possibly trespassing, he is a victim of police brutality.
And the tragic truth of the matter is some of those who were fatally shot by police needed to be shot. That it was a cop doing the shooting is beside the point.
Then these protesters watered down their stance even further by saying they are not "anti-cop". As the system is now set up, and until they implement my reforms, I am anti-cop. Any decent person has to be.
*
Donate?
'Government'- a hysterical overreaction
'Government'- a hysterical overreaction
The State (and its government) is a hysterical overreaction to overblown nonproblems that is then latched onto by evil power-hungry sociopaths for their own purposes, and is supported and cheered by pathetic, empty drones who seek to fill their need to be validated by attaching themselves to something and who want to win the favor of the Rulers.
This "overreaction factor" can be demonstrated more than adequately by stop signs and pot.
There is almost nowhere that a complete stop is necessary for safety. In almost every case, a motorist can see if the coast is clear and whether it is safe to proceed through the intersection without coming to a stop. If stopping is necessary, the sign doesn't change things at all. Stop signs are a hysterical overreaction to "Oh no! An intersection! What do I do?" Traffic signs have been demonstrated to cause a lot of accidents (directly and indirectly), and cities in Europe where such signs are being removed are seeing a huge decrease in delays, accidents, and congestion. Stop signs are a great money-stealing tool for The State, though.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason to kidnap or kill people for possessing, smoking, or selling plants. None. The "laws" are much more dangerous and deadly than marijuana could ever possibly be. If "safety" were really the goal, the "laws" that permit the War on (some) Drugs would be repealed immediately. That they are not shows that whatever the goal may be, it has nothing to do with what's best for you or me. Pot was a nonproblem that hysterical imbeciles and control freaks used to feed their own pathetic addiction. An addiction that actually harms others who are not those addicted, unlike drugs. (The crime that is blamed on drugs is caused by prohibition in the vast majority of cases, and on anti-defense "laws" in almost the entire remainder of cases.)
This truth is also clearly demonstrated in the case of an erotic film festival being forced to look outside the city limits for a venue after Albuquerque "authorities" said that showing erotic movies is prohibited in some (apparently, most) areas of the city. I could understand (though not necessarily agree) if the event were showing the films at a drive-in theater right out in the open for all to see, but that is not the case. Additionally, a city official is saying "the city" is trying to figure out how to ban the censored show the event organizers have scheduled at the Sunshine Theater. It's a hysterical overreaction from busybodies with nothing better to do than to spend their time worrying about what others are doing. They should really get a better hobby.
*
Donate?
The State (and its government) is a hysterical overreaction to overblown nonproblems that is then latched onto by evil power-hungry sociopaths for their own purposes, and is supported and cheered by pathetic, empty drones who seek to fill their need to be validated by attaching themselves to something and who want to win the favor of the Rulers.
This "overreaction factor" can be demonstrated more than adequately by stop signs and pot.
There is almost nowhere that a complete stop is necessary for safety. In almost every case, a motorist can see if the coast is clear and whether it is safe to proceed through the intersection without coming to a stop. If stopping is necessary, the sign doesn't change things at all. Stop signs are a hysterical overreaction to "Oh no! An intersection! What do I do?" Traffic signs have been demonstrated to cause a lot of accidents (directly and indirectly), and cities in Europe where such signs are being removed are seeing a huge decrease in delays, accidents, and congestion. Stop signs are a great money-stealing tool for The State, though.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason to kidnap or kill people for possessing, smoking, or selling plants. None. The "laws" are much more dangerous and deadly than marijuana could ever possibly be. If "safety" were really the goal, the "laws" that permit the War on (some) Drugs would be repealed immediately. That they are not shows that whatever the goal may be, it has nothing to do with what's best for you or me. Pot was a nonproblem that hysterical imbeciles and control freaks used to feed their own pathetic addiction. An addiction that actually harms others who are not those addicted, unlike drugs. (The crime that is blamed on drugs is caused by prohibition in the vast majority of cases, and on anti-defense "laws" in almost the entire remainder of cases.)
This truth is also clearly demonstrated in the case of an erotic film festival being forced to look outside the city limits for a venue after Albuquerque "authorities" said that showing erotic movies is prohibited in some (apparently, most) areas of the city. I could understand (though not necessarily agree) if the event were showing the films at a drive-in theater right out in the open for all to see, but that is not the case. Additionally, a city official is saying "the city" is trying to figure out how to ban the censored show the event organizers have scheduled at the Sunshine Theater. It's a hysterical overreaction from busybodies with nothing better to do than to spend their time worrying about what others are doing. They should really get a better hobby.
*
Donate?
Friday, October 22, 2010
When is it right to shoot a kidnapper?
When is it right to shoot a kidnapper?
Video of an Albuquerque LEO shooting and killing a kidnapper has been released by the Albuquerque Police Department.
I agree with the APD that the cop did the right thing. As if my opinion matters.
What I would like to point out, though, is that it would have still been the right thing to do if the kidnapped woman had shot her attacker herself, had she been in possession of a gun ("legally" or not) instead of a cellphone.
It would have still been the right thing to do if some random passerby had shot the kidnapper if the situation had become evident. Whether the defender had State permission for the gun used in defense of life or not.
And, probably not popular, but true nonetheless, it would have still been the right thing (regardless of The State's response) had the kidnapper been a LEO "just doing his job", if that job included "arresting" a person doing something that is not wrong - is not causing harm to any other person- but just "illegal". No double standards.
*
Donate?
Video of an Albuquerque LEO shooting and killing a kidnapper has been released by the Albuquerque Police Department.
I agree with the APD that the cop did the right thing. As if my opinion matters.
What I would like to point out, though, is that it would have still been the right thing to do if the kidnapped woman had shot her attacker herself, had she been in possession of a gun ("legally" or not) instead of a cellphone.
It would have still been the right thing to do if some random passerby had shot the kidnapper if the situation had become evident. Whether the defender had State permission for the gun used in defense of life or not.
And, probably not popular, but true nonetheless, it would have still been the right thing (regardless of The State's response) had the kidnapper been a LEO "just doing his job", if that job included "arresting" a person doing something that is not wrong - is not causing harm to any other person- but just "illegal". No double standards.
*
Donate?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Public schools or education? Choose one.
Public schools or education? Choose one.
In Albuquerque news: Politicians just don't get it.
I just heard the Diane Denish "education" ad on the radio again. You know the one- where all the teachers' union members are pretending that government schooling has something to do with education, and where they claim that since Ms. Denish wants to throw tons of your stolen money at those government indoctrination camps it means that she "cares" about children. (It seems more like it means she is beholden to the teachers' union, to me.) Oh, and don't forget that she pushed to get more young inmates into the system earlier through the "pre-K" programs. Please. It almost makes me sick to realize how many people fall for the lie.
Government schools are BAD for children and make a mockery of education. As a wise man has long advocated: "[E]radicate the public schools ... empty out their buildings and raze them to the ground, so that not one stone is left standing on another, and sow salt on the ruins."
Not that Susana Martinez is any better, because she isn't. Socialism is never fundamentally questioned by either candidate. Separate school and state: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm
DON'T VOTE. If you waste your time and your vote by voting for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum you are lending an air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system. If you vote you are agreeing to abide by the outcome. Just ignore The State in all its stupidity when at all possible. And elections for governor are one of the possibilities where you should exercise the "liberty option" and refuse to consent to the false "choice".
*
Donate?
In Albuquerque news: Politicians just don't get it.
I just heard the Diane Denish "education" ad on the radio again. You know the one- where all the teachers' union members are pretending that government schooling has something to do with education, and where they claim that since Ms. Denish wants to throw tons of your stolen money at those government indoctrination camps it means that she "cares" about children. (It seems more like it means she is beholden to the teachers' union, to me.) Oh, and don't forget that she pushed to get more young inmates into the system earlier through the "pre-K" programs. Please. It almost makes me sick to realize how many people fall for the lie.
Government schools are BAD for children and make a mockery of education. As a wise man has long advocated: "[E]radicate the public schools ... empty out their buildings and raze them to the ground, so that not one stone is left standing on another, and sow salt on the ruins."
Not that Susana Martinez is any better, because she isn't. Socialism is never fundamentally questioned by either candidate. Separate school and state: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm
DON'T VOTE. If you waste your time and your vote by voting for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum you are lending an air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system. If you vote you are agreeing to abide by the outcome. Just ignore The State in all its stupidity when at all possible. And elections for governor are one of the possibilities where you should exercise the "liberty option" and refuse to consent to the false "choice".
*
Donate?
What's worse- offending someone or trying to kill them?
What's worse- offending someone or trying to kill them?
The State fears nudity (in commoners, anyway) more than it dislikes aggression. Need proof?
An Albuquerque man supposedly showed up at a house, nude, and was seen by a teen girl inside. He also apparently tried to set fire to the girl's home.
Guess what he has been charged with. Not attempted arson, but "aggravated indecent exposure". What utter nonsense.
Nudity can't harm anyone in any way (unless you are the nude person in an environment unsuited for bare skin), but fire... burning someone's house while they are inside... that's a lot more real than "offense".
Humans need to get over their acquired fear of skin. It's really silly and harmful. And it distracts people from the serious problems. But I suppose the statists will claim that "no one" would really think there should be no "laws" against nudity.
*
Donate?
The State fears nudity (in commoners, anyway) more than it dislikes aggression. Need proof?
An Albuquerque man supposedly showed up at a house, nude, and was seen by a teen girl inside. He also apparently tried to set fire to the girl's home.
Guess what he has been charged with. Not attempted arson, but "aggravated indecent exposure". What utter nonsense.
Nudity can't harm anyone in any way (unless you are the nude person in an environment unsuited for bare skin), but fire... burning someone's house while they are inside... that's a lot more real than "offense".
Humans need to get over their acquired fear of skin. It's really silly and harmful. And it distracts people from the serious problems. But I suppose the statists will claim that "no one" would really think there should be no "laws" against nudity.
*
Donate?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The emperor's clothes never change
The emperor's clothes never change
The emperor's new clothes. They are the same as his old clothes. Imaginary. He has always been completely naked, and this set of "new clothes" is no different than the ones he has always claimed to be wearing.
Many people pretend to see the clothes when it's "their guy" walking around, yet bring attention to the nakedness when it's "the other side's guy" wearing nothing. The emperor is really the entire notion of government- not an individual holding an office, and his "clothes" are the imaginary cloak of legitimacy some people seem to desperately want to see covering the naked aggression that gives this murderous emperor his concrete form.
The cloak of legitimacy is not real, and never has been. I'm one kid who sees that the emperor is naked and tells the truth about it. Yet some people want me to hush. It embarrasses them to have it pointed out since they get their self-worth by following the emperor around, praising him and his "fine garments" and "necessary" (evil) deeds. They blame the messenger for the discomfort of what they don't want to see. They may refuse to see, but it doesn't change the reality.
* * *
In Albuquerque news: A five-month long, and undoubtedly very expensive, investigation by that naked blood-sucking emperor has resulted in nine people kidnapped on "drug charges" in western New Mexico. I'd be interested in cost per hostage (or political prisoner, if you prefer), itemized in detail. If the emperor were truly interested in putting an end to "drug trafficking" as he claims, he could end it today by calling off the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. Because he doesn't, we know he is a liar as well as a kidnapper and a murderer.
*
Donate?
The emperor's new clothes. They are the same as his old clothes. Imaginary. He has always been completely naked, and this set of "new clothes" is no different than the ones he has always claimed to be wearing.
Many people pretend to see the clothes when it's "their guy" walking around, yet bring attention to the nakedness when it's "the other side's guy" wearing nothing. The emperor is really the entire notion of government- not an individual holding an office, and his "clothes" are the imaginary cloak of legitimacy some people seem to desperately want to see covering the naked aggression that gives this murderous emperor his concrete form.
The cloak of legitimacy is not real, and never has been. I'm one kid who sees that the emperor is naked and tells the truth about it. Yet some people want me to hush. It embarrasses them to have it pointed out since they get their self-worth by following the emperor around, praising him and his "fine garments" and "necessary" (evil) deeds. They blame the messenger for the discomfort of what they don't want to see. They may refuse to see, but it doesn't change the reality.
* * *
In Albuquerque news: A five-month long, and undoubtedly very expensive, investigation by that naked blood-sucking emperor has resulted in nine people kidnapped on "drug charges" in western New Mexico. I'd be interested in cost per hostage (or political prisoner, if you prefer), itemized in detail. If the emperor were truly interested in putting an end to "drug trafficking" as he claims, he could end it today by calling off the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. Because he doesn't, we know he is a liar as well as a kidnapper and a murderer.
*
Donate?
Government-givers
Government-givers
A symposium being held in Albuquerque will educate judges, LEOs, and tribal leaders about a new treaty... oops, I mean "law", that affects crime on reservations.
The Federal government paternalistically "gave more authority" to Native tribes to deal with
crime on their reservations with the Tribal Law and Order Act, signed by the president last
summer. And the new "law" also guarantees the feds will keep records of all criminal cases
from the reservations that federal prosecutors decline to pursue. Nothing like getting more individuals into that federal database to increase our liberty and prosperity.
How benevolent of those White Eyes from Washington DC who always speak with two tongues. "Giving" something that is not theirs to give to those who don't need it.
Unless it "gives" tribes the authority to nullify "laws" of lesser, non-consensual groups, such as the federal and state governments, then it is much ado about nothing. But then, the tribes have always had that authority. They should exercise it. As should any voluntary group of individuals.
*
Donate?
A symposium being held in Albuquerque will educate judges, LEOs, and tribal leaders about a new treaty... oops, I mean "law", that affects crime on reservations.
The Federal government paternalistically "gave more authority" to Native tribes to deal with
crime on their reservations with the Tribal Law and Order Act, signed by the president last
summer. And the new "law" also guarantees the feds will keep records of all criminal cases
from the reservations that federal prosecutors decline to pursue. Nothing like getting more individuals into that federal database to increase our liberty and prosperity.
How benevolent of those White Eyes from Washington DC who always speak with two tongues. "Giving" something that is not theirs to give to those who don't need it.
Unless it "gives" tribes the authority to nullify "laws" of lesser, non-consensual groups, such as the federal and state governments, then it is much ado about nothing. But then, the tribes have always had that authority. They should exercise it. As should any voluntary group of individuals.
*
Donate?
Monday, October 18, 2010
Decreasing your local entropy
Decreasing your local entropy
I am a anti-entropist. I constantly try to decrease my local entropy while knowing that in the Universe as a whole, it must increase. I see where people have messed something up or broken it, and I want to fix it even if it is not my responsibility. And I often do.
That is part of why I dislike The State. It breaks the natural order and harms individuals. It is chaos of the worst kind masquerading as order.
Statists lie and pretend that they are fighting entropy, but instead they are accelerating it. Instead of letting human interactions naturally crystallize into the best, most stable, and mutually beneficial forms, The State prevents that spontaneous order and uses "laws" to make a mess of everything; to divorce actions from justified consequences. Then supporters of The State claim that the only alternative is chaos and death. They lie. I do not support their false beliefs. I will not even silently pretend the statists are right to avoid hurting someone's feelings.
* * * *
In Albuquerque news: I've mentioned the counterproductive drive to "do something" previously. The urge rears its empty head once again.
Some bikers in Albuquerque were recruited by an anti-heroin group to get the message out to teens that "heroin is here, it's in on our streets and in our schools". Seriously, I suspect the teens were the first to know. Instead of "breaking the silence" and telling teens what they already know, why not tell them the truth.
Tell them that abusing drugs, or anything, is a stupid thing to do. Tell them that they own their body and have a right to do anything to it they want, including destroying themselves, BUT no one has any obligation to rescue them from their stupid choices. And tell them that The State will kill them to "save them" from drugs, if given half a chance. That's the message that needs to get out there.
*
Donate?
I am a anti-entropist. I constantly try to decrease my local entropy while knowing that in the Universe as a whole, it must increase. I see where people have messed something up or broken it, and I want to fix it even if it is not my responsibility. And I often do.
That is part of why I dislike The State. It breaks the natural order and harms individuals. It is chaos of the worst kind masquerading as order.
Statists lie and pretend that they are fighting entropy, but instead they are accelerating it. Instead of letting human interactions naturally crystallize into the best, most stable, and mutually beneficial forms, The State prevents that spontaneous order and uses "laws" to make a mess of everything; to divorce actions from justified consequences. Then supporters of The State claim that the only alternative is chaos and death. They lie. I do not support their false beliefs. I will not even silently pretend the statists are right to avoid hurting someone's feelings.
* * * *
In Albuquerque news: I've mentioned the counterproductive drive to "do something" previously. The urge rears its empty head once again.
Some bikers in Albuquerque were recruited by an anti-heroin group to get the message out to teens that "heroin is here, it's in on our streets and in our schools". Seriously, I suspect the teens were the first to know. Instead of "breaking the silence" and telling teens what they already know, why not tell them the truth.
Tell them that abusing drugs, or anything, is a stupid thing to do. Tell them that they own their body and have a right to do anything to it they want, including destroying themselves, BUT no one has any obligation to rescue them from their stupid choices. And tell them that The State will kill them to "save them" from drugs, if given half a chance. That's the message that needs to get out there.
*
Donate?
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Man stabs man and gets 'creatively' charged
Man stabs man and gets 'creatively' charged
Sometimes, The State's actions seem like the set-up for a joke. After a church service in Albuquerque, a man (who happens to be an ex-convict) stabbed a man who was approaching to greet him. Now, when I used to attend church, I will admit the "greeters" got on my nerves pretty bad a few times, but I was never seriously tempted to stab one.
Obviously, the stabber was soon caught and charged with "aggravated assault and battery with a deadly weapon" (although I still fail to see the point in charging a person with 2 crimes from one act - since I am not afflicted with the insanity of statism). That's not the main stupidity on display here, though. The stabber was also charged with three counts of child abuse because some children saw the stabbing!
Fine. If that's the way they want to play. Then every cop who kicks in a door in a drug raid, especially when it turns out to be the wrong address, needs to be charged with child abuse from this day forward, if any children were present. If they are not so charged, then the statists are exposing themselves (another serious offense) as hypocrites in the extreme.
*
Donate?
Sometimes, The State's actions seem like the set-up for a joke. After a church service in Albuquerque, a man (who happens to be an ex-convict) stabbed a man who was approaching to greet him. Now, when I used to attend church, I will admit the "greeters" got on my nerves pretty bad a few times, but I was never seriously tempted to stab one.
Obviously, the stabber was soon caught and charged with "aggravated assault and battery with a deadly weapon" (although I still fail to see the point in charging a person with 2 crimes from one act - since I am not afflicted with the insanity of statism). That's not the main stupidity on display here, though. The stabber was also charged with three counts of child abuse because some children saw the stabbing!
Fine. If that's the way they want to play. Then every cop who kicks in a door in a drug raid, especially when it turns out to be the wrong address, needs to be charged with child abuse from this day forward, if any children were present. If they are not so charged, then the statists are exposing themselves (another serious offense) as hypocrites in the extreme.
*
Donate?
In touch with my caveman roots
I am a primitive. I am still too impressed with cordage, blades, and fire. More impressed than seems proper, by modern standards, anyway. There are so many "bigger" things out there now.
Yet, when I see some cordage I always need to examine it. I even feel the urge to collect and keep inferior cordage, like nylon, that I find discarded. I can make my own cordage, but that just makes me appreciate it more. I know how much work goes into it.
And I love knives. A knife is always a good gift in my opinion. And is a nice find. I even find pieces of metal and think about whether they would make a good blade in a survival situation. And I'll chip stones just to see what sort of edge it makes, and how useful it would be.
Then there's Fire. I love to sit beside a small fire I made with primitive methods and watch it flicker and burn. I love the way it sounds and smells. And the things it can be used for.
I would make a good caveman.
Yet, when I see some cordage I always need to examine it. I even feel the urge to collect and keep inferior cordage, like nylon, that I find discarded. I can make my own cordage, but that just makes me appreciate it more. I know how much work goes into it.
And I love knives. A knife is always a good gift in my opinion. And is a nice find. I even find pieces of metal and think about whether they would make a good blade in a survival situation. And I'll chip stones just to see what sort of edge it makes, and how useful it would be.
Then there's Fire. I love to sit beside a small fire I made with primitive methods and watch it flicker and burn. I love the way it sounds and smells. And the things it can be used for.
I would make a good caveman.
The State asks stupid questions
The State asks stupid questions
I see another incident in the Albuquerque news that illustrates a point I have made many times before.
A man was cleaning his gun and accidentally shot his 4-year old son and his mother. Both survived.
The cops admit it was an accidental shooting, but are sending the case to prosecutors to determine whether negligence played a part in the accident.
I can save a lot of taxpayer money right now: Yes, obviously and positively negligence did play a huge part in the accident. Guns don't shoot innocent people by themselves, and people who are not negligent in some way don't shoot innocent people either. So, save yourself the trouble of trying to appear to be "doing something" as prosecutors.
Now that I've settled that question, the other question remains, what is in it for The State if they decide to make a case out of this accident? Money and power, of course. That's all it ever comes down to. Not every accident (if any) needs to become a criminal case and be punished. I don't think this man intended to shoot his relatives, and making an example of him will not prevent this type of accident in the future. Not even in one case. I'll guarantee you the man has learned a valuable lesson and will be more careful from now on (if The State "allows" him to own guns after this). If anyone has a case against this man it is the people he shot. Not The State.
*
Donate?
I see another incident in the Albuquerque news that illustrates a point I have made many times before.
A man was cleaning his gun and accidentally shot his 4-year old son and his mother. Both survived.
The cops admit it was an accidental shooting, but are sending the case to prosecutors to determine whether negligence played a part in the accident.
I can save a lot of taxpayer money right now: Yes, obviously and positively negligence did play a huge part in the accident. Guns don't shoot innocent people by themselves, and people who are not negligent in some way don't shoot innocent people either. So, save yourself the trouble of trying to appear to be "doing something" as prosecutors.
Now that I've settled that question, the other question remains, what is in it for The State if they decide to make a case out of this accident? Money and power, of course. That's all it ever comes down to. Not every accident (if any) needs to become a criminal case and be punished. I don't think this man intended to shoot his relatives, and making an example of him will not prevent this type of accident in the future. Not even in one case. I'll guarantee you the man has learned a valuable lesson and will be more careful from now on (if The State "allows" him to own guns after this). If anyone has a case against this man it is the people he shot. Not The State.
*
Donate?
Saturday, October 16, 2010
ABQ 13th in percentage of tax-parasites
ABQ 13th in percentage of tax-parasites
Albuquerque has the dubious distinction of being one of the cities in America where more than 20% of its residents work for government at some level. Albuquerque comes in at number 13, with 21.58% of its workforce being tax-parasites. I'll bet if the accounting considered those "private sector" jobs that could not exist without supporting some government function the percentage would be much higher. But we'll ignore that for now.
That means that the rest of the people in Albuquerque, almost four out of five, are carrying those freeloaders. There is a better than one in five chance that you are parasitically living off your neighbors and the fruits of their production. But no one seriously considers taxation to be theft and those who live on government paychecks to be parasites. That's right. "No one" does.
*
Donate?
Albuquerque has the dubious distinction of being one of the cities in America where more than 20% of its residents work for government at some level. Albuquerque comes in at number 13, with 21.58% of its workforce being tax-parasites. I'll bet if the accounting considered those "private sector" jobs that could not exist without supporting some government function the percentage would be much higher. But we'll ignore that for now.
That means that the rest of the people in Albuquerque, almost four out of five, are carrying those freeloaders. There is a better than one in five chance that you are parasitically living off your neighbors and the fruits of their production. But no one seriously considers taxation to be theft and those who live on government paychecks to be parasites. That's right. "No one" does.
*
Donate?
I am 'no one'
I am 'no one'
I have discovered that according to the statists, I do not exist. That should mean they don't expect me to pay taxes or be bound by their "laws". Right?
What proof do I have that I am a non-existent "no one" to the statists? Consider these statements I have heard many times over the course of the years coming from them:
"No one wants to live without police."
"No one wants to live in a town without code enforcement."
"No one wants mentally ill people to be able to have guns."
"No one wants felons to be able to legally own guns."
"No one wants to completely end taxation."
"No one seriously thinks it would be a good idea to shut down the government."
"No one would want to do without government free [sic] roads and free [sic] schools for the children."
"No one really wants to make all drugs legal."
"No one wants to remove government oversight from businesses that make our food and drugs."
In all the above statements, I AM "no one". I have advocated all of those very things in the virtual pages of The Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner in the past year and a half, and in my blog for years before that.
Are you also "no one" in at least some of the above?
*
Donate?
I have discovered that according to the statists, I do not exist. That should mean they don't expect me to pay taxes or be bound by their "laws". Right?
What proof do I have that I am a non-existent "no one" to the statists? Consider these statements I have heard many times over the course of the years coming from them:
"No one wants to live without police."
"No one wants to live in a town without code enforcement."
"No one wants mentally ill people to be able to have guns."
"No one wants felons to be able to legally own guns."
"No one wants to completely end taxation."
"No one seriously thinks it would be a good idea to shut down the government."
"No one would want to do without government free [sic] roads and free [sic] schools for the children."
"No one really wants to make all drugs legal."
"No one wants to remove government oversight from businesses that make our food and drugs."
In all the above statements, I AM "no one". I have advocated all of those very things in the virtual pages of The Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner in the past year and a half, and in my blog for years before that.
Are you also "no one" in at least some of the above?
*
Donate?
Friday, October 15, 2010
More of those 'rare' bad apples?
More of those 'rare' bad apples?
An Albuquerque cop is a "person of interest" in his wife's 2007 shooting death and may be indicted by a grand jury early next year. And other ABQ cops, rather than just protecting this cop with words of support and denial, may have actually destroyed evidence that could have convicted him. "Thin blue line" indeed.
Do you really want these people to have "legal" access to weapons you are denied the liberty (in violation of your rights) to own and to carry? Do you really think cops are more honest and trustworthy than you or me? I'm not saying he committed the murder, but obviously some people know him and suspect he would be capable of it. I don't want that sort of person to be around me if I am forbidden defensive weaponry at least equal to his. And I certainly don't want him to have any "authority".
I keep wondering- what is it about all these cases involving cops taking so many years to get prosecuted? Preferential treatment again? There has got to be a separation of court and State. IF justice is to be the goal.
*
Donate?
An Albuquerque cop is a "person of interest" in his wife's 2007 shooting death and may be indicted by a grand jury early next year. And other ABQ cops, rather than just protecting this cop with words of support and denial, may have actually destroyed evidence that could have convicted him. "Thin blue line" indeed.
Do you really want these people to have "legal" access to weapons you are denied the liberty (in violation of your rights) to own and to carry? Do you really think cops are more honest and trustworthy than you or me? I'm not saying he committed the murder, but obviously some people know him and suspect he would be capable of it. I don't want that sort of person to be around me if I am forbidden defensive weaponry at least equal to his. And I certainly don't want him to have any "authority".
I keep wondering- what is it about all these cases involving cops taking so many years to get prosecuted? Preferential treatment again? There has got to be a separation of court and State. IF justice is to be the goal.
*
Donate?
Do accused cops get preferential treatment?
Do accused cops get preferential treatment?
An Albuquerque LEO accused of raping a young relative on several occasions, both before and after she was 13 years old, and then intimidating her into remaining silent, has been placed on "administrative leave" after being indicted. He can't carry a weapon (they mean "legally", I suppose) and can't investigate crimes as a cop for the duration. I wonder if he still gets to receive his duly-earned stolen money "paycheck" until he is either found guilty or cleared, or if his "leave" dries up that well.
I have no idea if he actually did it or not, but I do tend to suspect he is not getting the same treatment at the hands of The State that someone like you or me would be getting if we were facing the same accusations. It sure seems like he is getting preferential treatment to me.
Even people with supposed images of young people on their computers, who aren't even suspected of actually touching or photographing anyone themselves, get harsher treatment- without delay- at the hands of The State than this cop is getting. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Only, some ganders are more "equal" than we geese because they have a badge.
*
Donate?
An Albuquerque LEO accused of raping a young relative on several occasions, both before and after she was 13 years old, and then intimidating her into remaining silent, has been placed on "administrative leave" after being indicted. He can't carry a weapon (they mean "legally", I suppose) and can't investigate crimes as a cop for the duration. I wonder if he still gets to receive his duly-earned stolen money "paycheck" until he is either found guilty or cleared, or if his "leave" dries up that well.
I have no idea if he actually did it or not, but I do tend to suspect he is not getting the same treatment at the hands of The State that someone like you or me would be getting if we were facing the same accusations. It sure seems like he is getting preferential treatment to me.
Even people with supposed images of young people on their computers, who aren't even suspected of actually touching or photographing anyone themselves, get harsher treatment- without delay- at the hands of The State than this cop is getting. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Only, some ganders are more "equal" than we geese because they have a badge.
*
Donate?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Do-it-yourself statism
Do-it-yourself statism
If you are rich and think "the rich", including yourself, should pay higher taxes, what is stopping you from sending big checks to government right now? Why do you need a "law" ordering you to do it? As long as you don't force people who have a different idea of how to use their own money to go along, you are within your rights to waste your money however you want. (And make no mistake, sending the money to government is a waste unless you like bloated organizations which spend little of the money on the actual work they claim the money is going toward.) Once you start telling others how they must use their money and advocating "laws" to force them to do as you wish, you become an evil parasite; deserving of a parasite's fate.
This "do-it-yourselfism" could even be adapted to other areas of life.
If you think you have a "right" to control what your neighbor does with his own property, why not walk up to his door and try to force him, personally, to do as you wish? Why take the pathetic coward's way and send heavily armed thugs in your place? Sending thugs doesn't absolve you of your evil act in the slightest, no matter what you may pretend. You are just hiding your evil behind your hired goons.
If you hate for people to own and to carry guns, try to take them away yourself. And do it without a gun so as to not be a hypocrite. Pass all the counterfeit "laws" you want, but no one is obligated to obey a "law" that is counter to natural human rights- one of the most basic of which is the right to possess the best available tools for self-defense, and use them when needed against ANY attack.
If you support the War on (some) Drugs, throw away all your medications. Every single one of them. Don't take drugs. Then physically attack any family member or friend who doesn't subscribe to your silliness. Order them to only eat and drink things you approve of under threat of death. Don't send others to kick in doors in the middle of the night. Do it yourself if you approve. There are probably lots of people who could provide you with a list of houses in Albuquerque the cops are probably planning to conduct an illegal early-morning raid against. Put your life on the line for your beliefs, and accept the consequences of your acts.
Yes, by embracing collectivism - and attempting to force it on people who are too sensible for such simplistic nonsense - you show yourself to be a bad person. But at least you would be an "honest" bad person if you openly admit your goals and carry them out yourself instead of hiding behind the myth of the legitimacy of government.
*
A reader suggests, in the vein of a "gaggle of geese" a name for a group of cops: "a thug". I can imagine it now... "Did you hear that thug of cops over at the donut shop all arguing among themselves over how to split up the latest drug bust loot?"
*
Donate?
If you are rich and think "the rich", including yourself, should pay higher taxes, what is stopping you from sending big checks to government right now? Why do you need a "law" ordering you to do it? As long as you don't force people who have a different idea of how to use their own money to go along, you are within your rights to waste your money however you want. (And make no mistake, sending the money to government is a waste unless you like bloated organizations which spend little of the money on the actual work they claim the money is going toward.) Once you start telling others how they must use their money and advocating "laws" to force them to do as you wish, you become an evil parasite; deserving of a parasite's fate.
This "do-it-yourselfism" could even be adapted to other areas of life.
If you think you have a "right" to control what your neighbor does with his own property, why not walk up to his door and try to force him, personally, to do as you wish? Why take the pathetic coward's way and send heavily armed thugs in your place? Sending thugs doesn't absolve you of your evil act in the slightest, no matter what you may pretend. You are just hiding your evil behind your hired goons.
If you hate for people to own and to carry guns, try to take them away yourself. And do it without a gun so as to not be a hypocrite. Pass all the counterfeit "laws" you want, but no one is obligated to obey a "law" that is counter to natural human rights- one of the most basic of which is the right to possess the best available tools for self-defense, and use them when needed against ANY attack.
If you support the War on (some) Drugs, throw away all your medications. Every single one of them. Don't take drugs. Then physically attack any family member or friend who doesn't subscribe to your silliness. Order them to only eat and drink things you approve of under threat of death. Don't send others to kick in doors in the middle of the night. Do it yourself if you approve. There are probably lots of people who could provide you with a list of houses in Albuquerque the cops are probably planning to conduct an illegal early-morning raid against. Put your life on the line for your beliefs, and accept the consequences of your acts.
Yes, by embracing collectivism - and attempting to force it on people who are too sensible for such simplistic nonsense - you show yourself to be a bad person. But at least you would be an "honest" bad person if you openly admit your goals and carry them out yourself instead of hiding behind the myth of the legitimacy of government.
*
A reader suggests, in the vein of a "gaggle of geese" a name for a group of cops: "a thug". I can imagine it now... "Did you hear that thug of cops over at the donut shop all arguing among themselves over how to split up the latest drug bust loot?"
*
Donate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)