The illusion of government efficacy

The State can give the illusion of working to those saddled with the misguided need to look and see someone "in control" and running things, even if that control is not real or is harmful.

For the rest of us, those who look at whether things are really working, we see that when left alone, people self-organize very efficiently. We see government as causing chaos. We see that society works best when meddled with least- and never from a "top-down" direction or through a coercive monopoly. Of course, the phrase "top-down" implies that Rulers are "above" us, which isn't even partially true.

The most pathetic drunk in the gutter is a better person than the most benevolent Ruler. At least the drunk is not telling you how to run your own life, and threatening to kill you if you defy him. Well, unless he is also a politician or a cop, that is.

LEO kills pedestrian

LEO kills pedestrian

The new year begins with death-by-cop in Albuquerque. And, of course, the knee-jerk response by The State is to check the dead man's system for intoxicants rather than checking the cop who was driving. The double standard is once again at work. Just imagine if you or I had run over a cop who was on foot on the street. Would the first reaction have been to check the cop's blood for alcohol, or would the driver have been the automatic suspect? We both know the answer to that.

The cop had spent the night involved in a "DWI checkpoint" and had just left the scene of that offense when he hit the pedestrian. This doesn't mean the cop was "clean", and only a blindly religious devotee of the US police state would make that assumption.

Now, perhaps the pedestrian really was at fault. It's likely that he at least shared responsibility for the accident. However, for the LEOs to get special treatment when an accident occurs only deepens the chasm between the agents of The State and the regular productive people of America.

This should also demonstrate that checkpoints don't make anyone safer, and in this case they tangentially killed someone. That cop had no legitimate excuse to be on the streets at that time, and probably would not have been had he not been leaving the scene of his violations of the rights to travel free from molestation and to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Tyranny kills.

*

Donate?

Rationality- not terribly popular these days

I just really don't know how to respond to people anymore when their only justification for thinking a certain course of action is right or wrong is based upon superstition and imaginary beings who they believe are watching them.

I stopped even looking at the comments on one of my Clovis News Journal columns when the commentary devolved into "this is wrong- and must be kept illegal- because God says it is wrong".

I'm sorry, but if you get your notions of right and wrong from a supposedly immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient supreme being who is fine and dandy with, and completely supportive of, slavery, genocide, and other things that are harmful to innocent people (and, yes, I am fully qualified to judge that most victims of these horrors do not deserve them), then you have no principles and no moral compass. You will fall for anything as long as some authority you respect tells you it's OK.

I know who deserves to be defended against. I know who should be left alone. I know who is harming others if I see it happening. I know what actions are causing actual harm and which ones are just offensive to someone. If I can know this, shouldn't your supreme being be able to know this too?

Or, is he (or the narrative of him) trapped by the words and attitudes that were written down by barbarous tribesmen thousands of years ago? Unable to escape a primitive and brutal culture that laid out the rules of the game and claimed that this being was forever completely unchanging, since he was already perfection personified. Good thing for him that his fan club is so good at cherry-picking. Still, craziness is craziness, no matter how popular it remains, and it should not be coddled and encouraged.

Factual or fictional; rational or completely insane. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. It is not within my rights to order you otherwise even if it were possible. But... you have no right to base "laws" upon your silliness. If you try to do so, and you harm other people in the process- people who were simply trying to live their own lives- you are worse than those you seek to stop from doing ... whatever. You are actively committing acts of evil.

Smart - evil = libertarian

I've come to the conclusion that smart people who are not evil are very likely to be libertarian. People who have struck me as highly intelligent have usually turned out to have a very strong libertarian streak when I find out more about them. Often enough that I think it is more than coincidence.

While dumb people may be libertarian, it's probably just because someone told them something that sounded good at the moment and they latched on (there is always the possibility I belong in this group). Dumb people seem to be very attracted to the notion that it is OK to push people around and kill them if they don't cooperate. Some hide behind The State and some do it on their own, but there is no real difference between the two kinds of aggression.

Smart people will think things through for themselves and come to the libertarian position all by themselves without any outside guidance. They are also less likely to abandon their libertarian principles under coercion or distress.

Smart people who cling to the barbaric desire to harm people who do not deserve to be harmed right now will gravitate toward one form of authoritarianism or another. It is the only way they can justify the harm they cause (and usually avoid immediate consequences). They can pretend to be something other than a bad person, but it is a transparent act. Many of these end up joining the world's biggest, most violent gang.

Why "Dull 'Hawk"?

People seem to really enjoy using my "Dull 'Hawk" moniker (often shortened to "dullhawk" online) as an insult. The "dull" part, anyway. I'm sure I've explained this before, but I can't find it, so I suppose it's appropriate to post it here.

Dull 'Hawk is my "mountainman name", and is short for "Dull Tomahawk". (We mountainmen usually call our tomahawks "'hawks" among ourselves.)

So, why is my 'hawk dull? Actually, it isn't. Back in 1992 I was at a mountainman rendezvous and was competing in the tomahawk-throwing competition. My tomahawk would hit the target every time... and fall off. In practice it stuck every single time, but in the contest it simply refused. Performance anxiety, I suppose.

Anyway, people gave me the name "Dull 'Hawk" at that rendezvous and I kept it.

The State- collapsing under its own failures

The State- collapsing under its own failures

The State is a failure. Need proof?

An Albuquerque police detective has been placed on "administrative duty" while his arrest for punching his girlfriend is sorted out. They were fighting over her taxes. Fail, fail, and fail again. So the police department is quickly distancing themselves by emphasizing he is just a "part-time" Only One. Just in case their "thin blue line" fails to protect one of their Brothers.

The girlfriend should not be forced, by The State, to experience the stress of cooperating with and enabling the theft of her property. There should be no special elite class who are given special treatment when accused of serious offenses. If he really punched her, should he be doing anything "official" for the APD, or might this give a dangerous man opportunity to harm more people with impunity? In a free society this entire situation evaporates and would probably never have happened in the first place.

Then, to add failure on top of multiple failures highlighted above, the "career criminal" who has become a prime example of the failure of The State to do what its supporters claim is its number one job has been arrested for the 128th time. In a free society he would have been shot and stopped long ago by one of his intended victims, rather than being protected by "laws" against defense of self and property.

Enough is enough.

Politicians / thieves

I, and others, have frequently called politicians "thieves", which is an accurate statement. However, I think a much more accurate way to look at it is that all thieves are politicians.

There are only two ways to get something- either you earn it through consensual trade, or you steal it. This act of stealing what you want is known as "the political method". That means in order to be more accurate and honest when we speak of those who are committing theft, we should always refer to them by the name "politicians", since that is truly what they are. They have chosen the political method over consensual trade.

So, I will try to remember this and use the term appropriately whenever a theft occurs, for example "Two politicians held up a bank today..." or "A man was robbed in a parking lot by a politician..." Who knows, freelance thieves, oops- politicians might just be insulted enough to want to change.

Zero Aggression Principle video

And check out all the videos in this series here: link

Reader feedback from CNJ

I got an email this morning from a reader of the local paper. In it the person questioned my parentage, complained about my appearance in the picture beside my columns (included here for your amusement), and then began to complain that I never say anything good about Clovis.

Really? Did the person actually read any of my columns or just make an assumption? Because I thought I was very positive this week about the people who live here. I don't think I have ever been unkind to the regular people in the area in my columns; only to the parasites who prey on the productive people. Plus I always try to point out that the bad people are a tiny, if visible, minority everywhere. Good people outnumber the bad by a huge margin everywhere- as long as you don't only look inside criminal mobs.

She (?) did say one truthful thing when she said "you cannot say one nice thing about our city, state or,how our country is run" (all spelling and punctuation left as it was in the original). Right. Because they shouldn't be "run" at all. Top-down control is a bad idea no matter how you dress it up or how much you want to avoid taking responsibility for yourself. That has nothing to do with Clovis or America, but with the faulty notion of government. As I have said about America (that the USA is not America, but the biggest danger to America) I say about Clovis: the city government should not ever be confused with the city!

Also, I find I am corrupting our youth: "Do you not no [sic], that high school kids read our paper?" And...? They should be led to believe they are not responsible for themselves, but that Daddy Government should be worshiped and He will then take care of all their little troubles? Is that what she is saying? Young people are smarter than that, especially if shown the ethical alternatives to the statist lies. The bad ones will probably continue to be bad and seek either freelance criminal careers or State-sanctioned ones. Maybe if I can reach a few of the good ones I can help them avoid slavery- either as the slave master or the slave.

She goes on to say "And, your comments just rips apart,everything,our forfathers,have started?" Obviously a product of government schooling. History from the warped and wrong perspective of the Rulers. History turned upside-down and inside-out in order to support a revisionist agenda of collectivism and authoritarianism. Pathetic, but all too common.

Then, after being told to move away "from my paper" and from the area, she ends with this final comment (before signing off with another personal insult), which I found hilarious: "Dont upset us,with your crude Ideas," Hehe. Sorry, but that one made me smile. It's just packed full of comic goodness.

So, the CNJ reader feedback score stands at 1:1 for now. As always, I did write back and even refrained from taking advantage of the ample opportunities for ridicule which the email provided.

Do the right thing, law or no law

Do the right thing, law or no law

You know the right thing to do. I know you do. So don't wait for someone else to do it first and don't wait for a "law" to tell you to. Do it now.

I'm reminded of the Hobby Lobby shoppers who tackled a recent shoplifter. Instead of watching the thief and thinking to themselves "That's awful! Someone should do something about that" they took action and did the right thing. Thieves don't fear the law as much as they fear being stopped in their tracks by the only people who can be counted on to be right there when they attempt to carry out their attack. That is you and me, folks. If we once again make up our minds to always do the right thing we will be an insurmountable wall holding back the few bad guys living among us. The risk of being an attacker or a thief must be raised back up where it belongs.

The same need for personal accountability is reflected in the recent letter to the editor concerning speeding. Do the right thing yourself and, one person at a time, things get better. Most people drive at the speed they are most comfortable with, and consequently the speed at which they are the safest (ignoring for a moment the "speed limits" which are not based on anything but arbitrary ideas of what's best for everyone). Those who actually drive faster than they should will not be made responsible by "laws". In fact they may get a double thrill by not only driving faster than they should, but also in feeling they are rebels as long as they don't get caught. The answer is not more enforcement but more responsibility. Don't let a rude driver on your bumper force you to go faster (or slower) than you think you should, and don't feel guilty for blocking his path. And for goodness sake, teach your children to stay alert, aware, and out of the streets.

Need more ways to take action? If you think it is right for people to pay more taxes, don't wait for the tax rate on your neighbors to be increased by "law"; write a check out of your own bank account payable to the government right now.

The responsibility to govern yourself and to be accountable in all your actions reaches into every corner of your life. If you know someone who is in need, step in yourself to help. If you can't help, find those who can. Don't lay the burden on the "taxpayers" by handing that needy person over to some government agency. Getting a person caught up in the welfare and entitlement web is not helping them, but harming them and destroying the future of their children as well.

Reaching out to the government and expecting them to take care of things through more "laws, tougher enforcement, or welfare is the opposite of being responsible. You have the ability within yourself to make things better. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

(As submitted, not as published.)

Pardon Billy the Kid and then pardon John Wilkes Booth

Pardon Billy the Kid and then pardon John Wilkes Booth

One story that keeps cropping up in the Albuquerque news is whether the current governor will grant a pardon to Billy the Kid.

The issue centers on whether the then-governor, Lew Wallace, promised a pardon in exchange for the Kid's testimony, or whether a pardon was simply hinted at to get Billy to cooperate- in effect tricking him.

Either way I would say it seems to show that politicians weren't any more honest back then than they are now.

Many people might complain that this is a silly thing for a governor to be concerning himself with. Everyone actually connected with the case has been dead for a very long time, and the real truth of what was promised or lied about, as well as whether Billy the Kid was really a bad guy or not, is obscured by the time that has passed.

Maybe it is silly for this to be a government concern. Everything government does is silly at best and harmful at worst. However, as long as The State wastes time worrying about long-dead politicians and their broken promises to long-dead outlaws, The State isn't worrying about, and planning, new ways to molest the rest of us. This can only be good. It's like when all the cops are snarfing down donuts at the donut shop instead of harassing drivers. Let's encourage them to engage in useless, but harmless, exercises! At least until we can fire them all.

Along similar lines, I'd like to get the ball rolling on a pardon for John Wilkes Booth for his freelance trial, sentencing, and justified execution of that murderous tyrant Abraham Lincoln.
*
Donate?

Societal Cancer

Cancer is a hideous, deadly disease. It kills way too many people long before "their time". Yet, there is a form of cancer that is often not recognized, and sometimes is even intentionally encouraged. It is Societal Cancer, also known as "The State", or simply "government".

Societal Cancer has killed more people than all other forms of cancer combined. Often after warning signs which are discounted and ridiculed by other sufferers who are in denial. Whereas other forms of cancer are recognized universally as something to be eradicated, Societal Cancer is frequently praised and people are intentionally given the disease against their will- usually at birth.

The good news is that there is a proven cure that is available to every person. It is self responsibility and self control. It is as simple as minding your own business and leaving non-aggressive people alone. And a withdrawal of consent to cooperate with your own destruction by the cancer.

Join in the campaign to stomp out all forms of cancer, including Societal Cancer.

*

Donate?

Bubble Theory vs the ZAP etc.

I've been thinking a lot about my so-called "Bubble Theory of Property Rights" recently. Part of the reason is probably because of the video I made to try to explain my views on it. The rest of the reason is simply because it seems so completely self-evident to me, even in the face of the arguments against it.

Using the concealed weapon example is easiest for me because that's where the discussion began, but it applies just as well to anything you could carry or wear privately on (or in) your body.

It applies to the TSA abuses. It is what the Fourth Amendment was supposed to protect (although it was then thoroughly compromised with weasel-words telling how government could violate it "legally"). It is at the heart of self-ownership and individual sovereignty, since it means making choices for yourself and accepting the consequences of those choices rather than being responsible for other people's choices.

But I began to wonder how it held up against the Zero Aggression Principle. After studying it, I realized it passes with flying colors.

I completely agree with those who disagree with my Bubble theory of property rights on one particular point: Forbidding weapons from being carried concealed by visitors to private property does not initiate force.

However, the reverse is also true. Bubble theory does not initiate force in any way. You are not using physical force on another person by exercising your bodily property rights even when surrounded by their property.

Is being ZAP-compliant enough? I maintain that the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient, for ethical behavior. You must also not initiate deceit nor commit non-aggressive theft (fraud).

How does Bubble Theory stack up here? It does not deceive any innocent person, nor does it steal any object from anyone. It "steals" no part of the other property owner's rights from him, since his rights end where his property ends, and therefore does not penetrate the bubble of property traveling around with other people's bodies.

The only time it would initiate fraud is if you explicitly agreed to not carry anything the property owner forbade, and then did so anyway. Otherwise, while it might be nicer to acknowledge the prohibition and agree to abide by it, you are not harming anyone in any real way, neither physically nor economically, if you ignore their unreasonable demands. You are not violating the ZAP, nor are you harming anyone, but are taking responsibility for yourself and expressing your individual sovereignty.

That leaves only trespassing as a possible wrong you have committed. Is the property open to "the public", or did you receive an invitation? Then you are not trespassing if you are there. What about your "forbidden object"? An object can not trespass; only a person can. (If you go onto the other person's property and drop your "forbidden object", then you are littering. This is about as close to trespassing as an object can come, but the offense is yours, not the object's.)

No one is obligated to open their property to the presence of others. "Hermit" is a legitimate lifestyle choice. However, if you want to have it both ways: to not be a hermit, but also try to violate the personal rights of those who come to your property, you are not being a good person. I don't think you are even being rational.

As I say, I will still do my best to respect the wishes of other property owners, but I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I respect the property and liberty of others, as I claim to, then I can not pretend to have any control over what is inside their personal property bubbles. If I don't trust you with your liberty, then I don't trust you and have no business inviting you onto my property in the first place. You do what you feel is right, just as I will.

Added: I think claiming that real estate property rights can exist without "the bubble" of personal property rights existing is like claiming that you can exist without your grandparents ever having existed. Just my view on the matter...

The pot calling the kettle black- and filing suit

The pot calling the kettle black- and filing suit

A former student of Sandia High School in Albuquerque is suing a teacher and the school district because he claims the teacher made racial jokes at his expense. Yet, the only supposedly "racial" comment the news report singles out is that the teacher called him a "black hole".

I hate to tell the little genius, but "black hole" is not a racial comment at all. That is simply the name of a physical phenomenon that he somehow reminded the teacher of. It is no more racist than would calling him a "black sheep" be (something I readily admit to being). It is not racist to mention "the pot calling the kettle 'black'". It is not racist to fear black cats as bad luck. Stupid, yes, but not racist.

I have known a bunch of people who could have been called "black holes". Any information you gave them got sucked in by their intense density and was utterly destroyed. No information or intelligence ever shone from them in any way.

Sorry, but someone who dwells on things of this nature, looking for a "racist angle" to claim victimhood with, is themselves a racist and needs to grow up. Fast; before you have made such a fool of yourself you can never recover.

None of this in any way excuses the inexcusable existence of "public schools". This could just as easily happen in any other education setting- except that teachers and learners could be matched more efficiently, and no one who qualified as a "black hole" would face compulsory attendance "laws" if they were a waste of time, and your stolen money would not be used to pay for the resulting legal battle- in a free society that had rid itself of the government indoctrination camps we euphemistically call "schools".

Forgive my whine

I have to admit, I don't feel like writing anything recently. I'm tired. I feel it is pointless to write words that will be lost on those who are only too happy to bend over for The State as long as The State is killing and harming "those people" on their behalf. And the decent people (like you) already know what I'm going to write most of the time anyway.

I need to write my column for the CNJ in the next day or two and I have no clue what I might write on. I don't feel like starting a fight this week.

Examiner.... who knows. I desperately need to write for them or I won't be able to afford my phone (which is about the only social life I have). Sigh.

I'm drained and I need to be recharged. Yet, I am still draining instead.

Milgram runs amok in ABQ

Milgram runs amok in ABQ

Seems there might be a systemic problem in the "corrections" business.

An Albuquerque corrections officer has been arrested for raping a female inmate and for also allowing another inmate (who just happens to be a former corrections officer who is in jail for raping female inmates) to, once again, rape a female inmate.

It's like the Milgram Experiment being run full-scale with real-life consequences and no one to step in and stop it before it goes too far. Am I the only one who sees the evil of this? Especially considering how many of the inmates are in jail, not for doing anything wrong, but simply as political prisoners.

Once is too many times. Twice is horrible. How many times have not been reported, and how many other rapists are working for corrections [sic] facilities?

*

Please check out all my videos at KentForLiberty.com/videos. And feel free to spread them around.

*
Donate?

State should stay out of private life

State should stay out of private life

As a libertarian, I'm accustomed to being misunderstood. It goes with the territory. So many times commenters think they are being clever and have caught an error in libertarianism, only to reveal they didn't read or hear what was being said.

Case in point: a while ago, in a comment posted to an article in the Clovis News Journal about the election day failure of the bond issues for the local punishment industry, I observed that the "justice system" would be much cheaper and better if counterfeit "laws" were not being enforced. These are the "laws" the violation of which have no specific, individual victims; are expressions of self-ownership; or are consensual acts between responsible individuals which are no one's business except those involved.

Drug use, gun possession, most traffic "laws", prostitution, and things of this nature should never have been made into things The State seeks to regulate, prohibit, or control. Things that are actually wrong, such as theft or fraud, rape, kidnapping, assault, and murder would still be subject to punishment or, better yet, restitution. No one has a right to control your private life unless you violate the identical rights of others by infringing on their life or property.

However, if your drug use, your religious beliefs, your job, or anything else is used as an excuse for committing harmful acts (such as theft or assault), you are liable for the harm you caused and your rationale is meaningless. Wrong is wrong.

One reply to my comment sarcastically stated something to the effect that of course the "crime rate" would go down if assault and robbery were made legal. That the commenter completely missed my entire point was obvious. This is a source of frustration; not those who read and understand, yet disagree. They may be wrong, but their wrongness is at least based upon their principles and value system (flawed and inconsistent as those may be) rather than upon the belief I am advocating the opposite of what I am.

Often I want to reply that the commenter should have his mom re-read my comment to him, pointing out specifically the main thrust of my argument which pulls the rug out from under his snarky reply. Then I realize I would probably be wasting my time. It's better to just ignore those types. The problem is that they believe government can be the solution, and they vote based on that mistaken conviction. This should scare anyone who has sense.

(This is as I submitted it, not as it was published.)

Concert raided; violations invented

Concert raided; violations invented

The man who organized the concert that was raided by Albuquerque LEOs, who called it a "rave", is being singled out for the wrong thing.

Providing entertainment that is voluntary and initiates no force or fraud against anyone is not wrong. Tricking people into becoming a slave of the federal government is wrong. He organized the concert but he is also a national guard recruiter. Let's get our priorities straight.

I always wonder who alerts the LEOs to events such as this concert. Busybodiness should have consequences.

I see no allegations that anything wrong was going on, or that anyone was harmed. Of course, the "officials" were able to find "code violations". There is no building on earth that would be completely free of these if examined close enough. The "officials" also say that "underage girls" were wearing "very inappropriate outfits". So what? What gives the "officials" the authority to decide what is inappropriate for anyone else?

There exists in authoritarians the perverted desire to make certain that no one has any fun (except for their own guys who get a thrill out of their acts of coercion and control). I'll not excuse their harmful perversion.

*
Donate?

Criminal pruning hits ABQ

Criminal pruning hits ABQ

Albuquerque city officials are furious that someone took matters into their own hands and did a little freelance tree pruning. Practicing on some trees the city planted.

Yes, the pruning job was amateurish and may cause the trees to die (probably not as a direct result of the trimming, but as a result of the city removing the trimmed trees). Added to that, the city is reacting like a spoiled brat and throwing a tantrum over the incident. It's amusing to see.

Yet, government does the exact same thing to people's property all the time. With even less justification (assuming the city is correct about the reason the trees were pruned). They never let themselves be held accountable for the results of their actions. It just goes to show that government employees think they are an elite class; above everyone else. Their wishes and opinions become "law", while ours, if acted upon, are crimes.

*
Donate?

Dependent on the bully?

(This was submitted as my Clovis News Journal column for this week, but was rejected, so I am free to post it here instead. The air base is totally off-limits as a topic for me to write about in the paper.)

This area has an addiction and Cannon Air Force Base is the drug. Just look at what happened when the community was threatened with having the drug taken away. The resulting uproar was what you would expect of an addict faced with losing his supply.

As a libertarian I respect the right of an addict to use any substance he wants as long as he harms no one else. That means not stealing to support the habit, and not attacking anyone while using the addiction as an excuse. As long as he harms no one else it is none of my business what he chooses to do with himself, even if it means destroying himself in the process. [Note: I didn't really expect that the majority of CNJ readers would connect the dots that in this case, the government is stealing the money to "pay for" the air base, but I was trying to avoid mentioning, once again, that taxation is theft.]

I will still point out that addictions are not healthy and try to talk the addict out of his self-destructive behavior just because I care, but the final choice is always up to the addict.

Would breaking the addiction really be fatal to this area as so many seem to think? Or, as is usually the case, would it seem much less critical after the withdrawal symptoms had run their course? Wouldn't there be a freedom in not feeling that your survival is tied to someone else's benevolence? I think there would be. Would the community survive? Yes. There would be changes and adjustments, and life would go on. Don't ever let anyone make you think you need to beg them to keep you alive and healthy.

Personally, I think this community has an inferiority complex that is not realistic. There are a lot of good people here, and a lot of opportunities. It's easy for each of us to become a better person and make even more opportunities. Stop letting the few bad guys who do the majority of the bad things be your defining example of the area. Outshine them. Then maybe you won't tie your self worth to something that is really not within your control.

If it is what you want to do, embrace and celebrate the air base, but don't let it hold you hostage and don't let it bully you.