The reason I don't rely on historical quotes

In my latest CNJ column, the editor added some quotes by historical founding fathers. I agree with the quotes, but not with adding them to the column (he did ask me first, though). And here's why.

For any quote you can find by a historical figure that illustrates your point, someone will ALWAYS claim that the quote was never really said by that person. Or that he was misquoted. It happens every time.

Another hitch is that even if the quote is great, and the attribution is beyond reproach, you will often have other people point out that even if the person said what you quoted, they also said things in direct opposition to that point.

People are not perfect, and while they may have said one good quote that respects liberty for all, they almost all have (or had) some very bad habits or opinions somewhere concerning some subject. Blind spots and inconsistencies are everywhere. The quoted person may have stood up for the right of everyone to own and to carry weapons everywhere they go, yet in the next breath asserted that it was OK for The State to collect "taxes" or for people to own slaves.

If I'm going to be disputed or faulted, I would rather be the target, rather than someone I can't talk to in order to get clarification. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading the good quotes; I do!

I don't believe in "terrorists"

I don't believe in terrorists. Not as generally thought of, anyway.

There are only people who initiate force, and everyone else.

The only people who initiate force who would possibly cause terror in me are those I can't adequately resist.

The only ones I would ever feel inadequate against are those who have State permission to initiate force against me. The inadequacy comes from my recognition that they have a lot more money than me (since they can steal or print "money" without constraint), and with that money can buy lots of fancy hardware and the cooperation and "loyalty" of a lot of principle-impaired people to keep sending after me.

So, I suppose that to me, the only possible "terrorist" would be a State employee. IF that employee were able to instill terror in me, which is unlikely.

On principles, there can be no compromise

A few days ago, I had yet another conversation with my newspaper editor over the content of my columns. I get along pretty well with the editor and I think he has a difficult job trying to work out differences between me and the publisher. (I am sorely tempted to quit the newspaper writing gig due to the frustration and the dread that comes with each week's submission, but that's a different subject.)

Anyway, speaking of why my columns are so hard to get past the publisher led to this exchange:

The editor said something to the effect of "The difficulty is that you are serious about libertarianism. You don't compromise."

To which I responded something like "Face to face I am very willing to compromise. As long as someone isn't attacking me, there is usually some way to compromise. Principles are not the place I can compromise."

Of course, my whole answer was a lot longer-winded.

As a libertarian, I compromise a lot, in day-to-day life with people I deal with. It's fairly easy to do as long as others keep their hands off my life.

Yet, the very nature of a statist makes it almost impossible for them to keep their "hands", in the form of "laws", to themselves. That is why compromise seems so difficult when a libertarian is trying to deal with a statist. All the "compromise" that the statist proposes is about how much the statist will be violating the libertarian. That is not "compromise", that is losing ground that can't be regained.

Principles can not be compromised or they are not principles. They are a line in the sand. Whether you defend them or not is up to you, but they don't shift around. If I am laying out the principles of libertarianism, I do no one any service by being wishy-washy or a "nerf libertarian". Compromise can come when you decide whether or not to defend that particular principle from this particular violator at this exact moment. Your choice doesn't change the facts of the principles one iota.

Laws also deserve to be scrutinized

Laws also deserve to be scrutinized

(This one was totally neutered and declawed to make it acceptable to the publisher. I offer the original, offensive version here.)

Just about everyone wants justice. One of the most powerful tools you and I have available to keep government honest is the jury. The trick is you can't count on the government informing you of your power; you must usually hear of this from a libertarian activist instead.

Did you realize that when you are serving on a jury, it is your duty to not only judge the facts of the case (in other words, to decide if the accused person actually did what they are accused of), but also whether the law the person is accused of violating is a good law or not? It is true.

Most people are not aware of this fact, and most judges today will actually tell jurors they are not allowed to decide whether the law is a good law or not. However, this has been the cornerstone at the foundation of the legal system which America inherited, for close to a thousand years, whether judges like it or not. This practice is called "jury nullification" and is still completely legal (and right) in spite of what judges may claim.

A jury which is tricked into giving up this power is not a real jury; it is just there to rubber-stamp the government's agenda.

The other way the justice system can be used to strengthen liberty is to realize when a case does not belong in the justice system at all, and act accordingly if you are on the jury.

Today most people think of a "crime" as something that the government has seen fit to forbid and punish through "laws". However, a real crime must include an intent to cause harm. Accidents can not be crimes and do not belong in the justice system.

Suppose a person is accused of having an accident that injures an innocent person; that accusation leads to a criminal trial, and you are chosen to sit on the jury. In a case such as this, you need to carefully consider whether any crime has really occurred- whether there was an intent to harm- before considering anything else.

This doesn't mean that accidents are without costs. If you cause harm you owe restitution. Any real system of justice must be centered on the concept of restitution to the victim or their survivors.

However, the government is not the victim and has no horse in the race. It shouldn't even be involved in the arbitration at all. Imprisonment doesn't provide restitution, and as implemented now only costs taxpayers the huge overhead of maintaining prisoners.

The same goes for "fines". They are not paid to the victim, but to the government which was not harmed. They are simply another tax.

In order for real justice to be served, there needs to be a separation of court and State. Until then, use the tools you have been given to advance real justice and liberty for all.

*
Donate?

Seat belts

One of the Meddling-Nanny excuses used to justify controlling every breath we take is the seat belt. It is claimed that people must be forced to wear a seat belt, if not "for their own good", at least so they don't get injured in a wreck and become a burden on society.

Poppycock.

No one can be "a burden on society" without socialism. To use the flaws of socialism to justify tyranny is disgusting. Yet, it happens a lot since, as it has been noticed, government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

I prefer to wear a seat belt. I have heard all the pros and cons and I made my own decision. I'm sure you have done the same.

Some people are afraid of being trapped in a burning wreck by their seat belt, so they don't want to wear one. That is their business and not mine. I always carry a few knives in various places so if I am conscious I won't be trapped by a seat belt in case of an accident. And if I'm not conscious, then the seat belt probably won't be the biggest danger anyway.

Blogs to read

I've found a couple of blogs that I have been reading recently, but hadn't mentioned. I will correct that now.

One is The Zero Government Blog from our friend, and TOLFA founder, Jim Davies.

The other is one I have linked to several times for certain issues, Voluntary Boundaries.

Both deserve your attention.

"Kent's Observation" (on "Godwin's Law")

Anytime "Hitler" or "Nazis" are mentioned, or even when a comparison is just hinted at, Godwin's Law will be brought up, often incorrectly, no matter how valid the comparison may be.

The mantra "Never forget" has been replace by "Never notice real similarities or Godwin's Law will be brought up in an attempt to stop the debate".

When pointing out that "I was just following orders", "I was just doing my job", "I just enforce the laws, I don't make them", or similar authoritarian excuses are the exact same ones used by Nazis on trial at Nuremberg, there is no comparison more applicable or valid. Those who will enforce a counterfeit "law" against their neighbor, whether it sends the person to a death camp or to a city jail (or even "just" subjects them to a "fine"), is not different from a Nazi in kind, but only in degree. These are the very comparisons that Godwin's Law attempts to protect by weeding out the exaggerated hysteria. People who prefer carnations over roses are not Nazis; people who will kill a person over possession of some dried leaves or other consensual behavior could accurately be compared to one.

Godwin NEVER claimed that the comparison was always inappropriate, just that it was inevitable it would crop up somewhere eventually if an online discussion went on long enough, and that making the comparison in trivial matters diluted the impact of the times the comparison was accurate. He also never claimed that mentioning Hitler or Nazis made a person automatically lose the debate. These are wishful-thinking add-ons by people who are uncomfortable with the truth. Other people may fall into this trap if they don't realize what's happening.

Freedom of choice

Why not choose the best from among the available options?

I have heard people claim that I must want to "go back" to some earlier time, just because I dislike The State. That's silly. I think now is the best time to be alive- so far- except for the presence of the ubiquitous 21st Century Global Police State. And I refuse to let the tools of that State poop on my picnic.

Yes, there are things from the past that I'd prefer, just as there are things of today that I prefer. I'll bet there are even more things from the future that I'd like even more. We'd probably have a lot of those things available right now were it not for the interference of The State.

Many days I'd like to live as a caveman, with stone tools and animal skins. But, I like my cell phone, too. I like modern medicine- at least in theory. I like the variety of food I can choose from. So, yes, I would have no problem wearing animal skins with a cell phone hanging at my waist in a leather pouch, while squatting in a cave eating a taco salad, and drinking a Dr Pepper from a tin cup. And taking ibuprofen for a headache if I want to. A historical mishmash. (Customers used to be amused that I'd be wearing full mountainman clothing, with a cordless phone hanging on my belt beside my flintlock pistol and bowie knife, while I worked at the pet shop.) This isn't really contradictory- It's just me.

I have millions of years of humanish existence I can mine for things I like. I think it's odd to limit myself to only those things that are currently popular. Why only wear things that everyone else wears? Why use cell phones, but shun the occasional stone tool? Why would I like technology when it comes to guns, but dislike computers? For fire, I normally use a lighter, but am glad I know how to make fire with the bowdrill, or flint and steel. It's all human technology; it is my heritage and I will use what I want, when I need it.

The only reasons I can think of to be uncomfortable with modern technology are reasons that have nothing to do with the technology, but only with abuses The State imposes upon the users of certain technology.

I don't wish to be tracked or numbered, but I find the cell phone (as an example) to be incredibly liberating. No longer does a person feel the need to stay inside to be near a phone if expecting a call. You still have the choice to answer or not if a call comes in. Isn't liberty great?

*

Donate?

Voting: my latest thoughts

A thread on the Facebook "The Libertarian Enterprise" page has brought up the differing opinions on voting once again. As my own views have evolved though the years I thought I'd lay out my current views on the matter.

Voting doesn't make me happy. It gives me no sense of accomplishment or satisfaction. Yes, I realize that is probably because I value liberty and "the majority" of voters do not. And election results have always reflected that truth whether I was voting or not.

I refuse to ask The State for permission to have liberty. If I debase myself enough to ask for it, I don't deserve it. Every person will probably always have some jerk in his or her life who will try to control them. Yes, that will still be the case even if you vote away The State and eat every politician and bureaucrat at a world-wide barbecue. Some people are just authoritarian thugs and nothing will ever change that. You might as well deal with them the best you can and live as free as you can in spite of them. Now!

I suppose if voting makes you happy, and keeps you thinking about, and hungry for, liberty, it might be useful for you. Just as using "drugs" makes some people happy, so it is with voting. As long as you only vote to eliminate or reduce government power, and never vote for "the lesser (or greater) of two evils", then I suppose your voting is fairly harmless.

If a person has to go through the "voting stage" before they are ready to go deeper into advocating liberty, then that might be a good thing too. Once they reach that stage, if they still get joy out of casting a vote, as in the example above, then that is their choice.

But, you should recognize that the "system" is rigged. Totally and completely. You can't "vote yourself (or the country) free". It can't happen. As they say, if voting could change anything, it would be illegal. Voting lends an undeserved air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system, and gives the illusion of consent.

I suppose if for some reason the thought of voting made me happy again someday, I'd probably do it again (within the bounds I laid out above). I won't say it couldn't happen, but I think it's unlikely. But that is why I don't get too critical of those who want to vote, as long as they don't get too critical of my choice.

I still think it better to run for office to siphon off some voters from the bad guys, than to actually vote.

Added: What about "voting in self-defense"?

Egypt- don't stop halfway!

Getting rid of Mubarak is good for Egypt, but just watch as they make the same old mistake yet again, still expecting different results.

The revolution hasn't succeeded yet; they are still accepting a State of some sort, with someone "in charge", as inevitable. Probably without even questioning that bizarre concept.

You can't get rid of a tyrant and replace him with someone else and think you're free. Well, obviously you can, but you've accomplished nothing if you do. Don't stop before the job is done!

Clovis zoo should be private effort

Clovis zoo should be private effort

Like many people in the area I was saddened by the news of Jay the giraffe's unfortunate death. I like Clovis' zoo and the people who work there, while still fully understanding that zoos should be private affairs and not government-run entities.

Most of the negative comments I have read concerning the death were related to the perception that money had been wasted by the city on a giraffe. This cuts to the heart of why government has no business being involved in things of this nature (among others).

It doesn't bother me if a local restaurant spends its profits on a diamond and ruby chandelier to hang above the dining room. After all, I didn't pay for it unless I choose to eat there. The same goes for my neighbor: as long as I am not subsidizing his lifestyle it doesn't hurt me if he drives a Lamborghini. I might think money is being wasted in both examples, but I have no say in how they spend what is theirs to spend; nor should I.

However, anytime you get a government involved you end up forcing people to pay for things they would rather not. Be it giraffes or police or aircraft carriers or a local politician's mistresses. This causes understandable hostility.

I have no problem paying for what I use, including the zoo. However, I believe that people who don't want to subsidize my recreational activities should not be forced to do so. It's that "crazy libertarian" nature in me raising its head again. I could go to a privately-run zoo and feel good knowing that the voluntarily-collected money that could be used for animal care is not being used for bureaucracy instead, and secure in the knowledge that no one is losing their home or business in order to shell out to the local government in order to finance the zoo.

A privately-run zoo could buy all the giraffes it wants and it would be no one's business other than the owner's. It could even receive donations to finance special exhibits just like government-run zoos often do. It could do what it thinks is best for its animals and customers without running the political gauntlet for every decision and without people feeling their money had been wasted. It also wouldn't be used as a "community service" sentence for people who crossed swords with often-arbitrary government rules. Maybe I could even get a job at a private zoo as "designated rat shooter".

De-politicize the zoo; de-politicize life.

Added: It turns out Jay impregnated (that's "knocked-up" to those who didn't progress beyond their government school education) the female giraffe before he died, so I guess the zoo still got a second giraffe out of the deal- about a year later.

Non-solutions

Some problems can't be solved. Don't like that? Tough. Suck it up and move on.

For every problem that can be solved, there is an actual, real, liberty-respecting solution.

If a "solution" violates anyone's individual rights and liberty, then it is not a solution at all, but just another problem. It's like claiming that scalping is a solution to dandruff.

*

Speaking of solving problems, you could buy my book "Problem? Solved!" (or any of my other books) and help me avoid the impending financial doom that seems to be once again bearing down on me. Or you could just donate to help out. But you are not obligated to do so, of course.

Sick societies

The only society in which a person could get away with barbarous acts such as killing an "infidel" who doesn't have the same religious notions as you, or kicking in someone's door over possession of a plant, or prohibition of self defense and the proper tools to carry it out, is a society infected by the cancerous idea of government.

If you do things like any of the above on your own, unsupported by The State, you would rightly be considered a bad guy. Being backed by "The Law" changes nothing, other than making your sociopathic behavior safer for you to commit. For the moment, anyway.

No healthy society would ever even consider such disgusting acts as "normal" or "proper". And I can't see how any person who supports any such acts could ever be considered a "good" person.

*

Donate?

The problem with voting- part 982

One problem with voting is that you can't vote for half a politician. And if you try to create a half politician that you can agree with, you can be punished by enforcers for all sorts of "crimes" related to your unauthorized ninja surgery.

With most other choices in life you can choose the good stuff and reject the bad. In an order of french fries you can eat the good ones and toss the one that looks like it might just be a fried rat's tail. When out with your best friend, you can join him in doing the things you like, but you can let him go on his own way if he wants to whack hornet nests with a tennis racket while wearing only underwear.

The nature of politics is that when you vote for a politician based on his stance on an issue that you agree with, you can also be getting a lot of really bad things in the same package. He might claim to respect the Second Amendment, but he might also support "border security", the War on (some) Drugs, or other Big Government nonsense. You may also find out that his "support" for the issue that got him your vote is little more than an illusion. Maybe he says he supports the Second Amendment, but fills that support with so many holes of "but" ("but holes"?) that his support is meaningless. This is usually the case.

Anytime a politician is elected, even if you didn't vote for him or anyone else, you may be forced by "law" to eat the fried rat's tail while being stung by the hornets if that is what he decides he wants you to do "for the good of society".

Even if you could vote for a politician who had zero insane notions, which is highly unlikely, he may still advocate violating the individual rights of someone else in a way you don't notice or care about. It isn't right for your vote to give him this ability.

Be right. Don't vote.

*

Donate?

Accept the truth of the "crazy stuff"

I read where Scott Adams of "Dilbert" was claiming to be "Libertarian, but without the crazy stuff".

Of course what that really means is that he claims to be a libertarian without consistency. That's sad.

It is easy to agree that The State, and specifically the US Federal government, has gotten too big, too powerful, and too corrupt. It seems to be a little harder to admit that this is where externally-imposed government will always, inevitably lead.

Someone sent me a couple of links a while ago that are incredibly good reading, and are wonderful tools for stripping away those inconsistencies. Both are a little long, but I highly recommend you check them out.

The Myth of the Rule of Law

The obviousness of Anarchy

*

Donate?

Arguing with 'The State's' True Believers

The more I experience the truth of liberty- whether you call it anarchism, voluntaryism, libertarianism, sovereign individualism, or whatever- the less need I feel to justify it to others.

It's like wasting my time trying to get people to see that cows don't have 6 legs (generally) while they keep insisting that, yes, they do. Whatever.

The truth is there for anyone to see if they want to look. It doesn't go away because they keep chanting that it doesn't exist. It doesn't care what they believe. It doesn't care what they want or "need" to be true. It just is what it is.

So, yes, I keep inserting my two cents (real copper) where and when I feel inspired to do so, but it really doesn't matter that much to me anymore whether anyone believes me or not.

Property codes violation of rights

Property codes violation of rights

One man's blight is another man's freedom. Liberty is sometimes messy, but it is still preferable to, and the ethical opposite of, "neat and orderly" socialism.

A big aspect of socialism is placing the supposed benefit to society above the inalienable rights of the individual. This means that all socialism has the myth of "the common good" or "the general welfare" at its heart, and nothing but socialism can come from this myth. Socialism is wrong, even when you approve of it, can come up with reasonable-sounding justifications for it, and even if you benefit from it.

One of the first casualties of socialism is the right to use your private property as you see fit without first getting approval of others.

I oppose, without reservation, all calls for "property codes" to be used as a tool against "blight". That's socialist-speak for "Violating your property rights on behalf of The Majority using the threat of force". It is wrong even when it has been made "legal".

I understand that some people get offended when a neighbor has an unkempt lawn or a junky car in their yard. Yet, what another person does with their own property, even to the point of destroying it, is no one else's business as long as no one else or their property is being harmed- and being offended doesn't qualify as harm. Otherwise their property is none of your business, no matter what.

If a neighbor's junk is winding up on your property, because of breezy conditions or intentional tossing, or if it is causing you harm through attracted vermin or mosquito breeding, you have the right to take action to solve that particular problem or seek restitution. If there is a credible danger that a person's junk may catch fire and endanger your property you have the right to seek arbitration and to hold the other property owner accountable in case of damage. Reality indicates that lack of "blight" is no guarantee that no harm will ever come from a neighbor's property.

In a free society, where fire fighting would be a true free market enterprise, fire fighting companies could refuse to contract with those whose property was an unreasonable fire risk, or could charge higher rates to offset the higher risk. In a government monopoly, as long as the taxation is being paid, the fire department can not ethically discriminate. This encourages irresponsible behavior, which is then discouraged through property rights-violating "laws". It's an unhealthy system..

I realize many people are concerned that a neighbor's property could impact the value of their own property. If this is a concern you have the right to live in a neighborhood in which all the residents have voluntarily, and UNANIMOUSLY, agreed to certain conditions and restrictions. You and your other neighbors do not have the right to impose these restrictions on a neighbor who doesn't agree to them.

I don't like "blight" any more than anyone else, but I repudiate this violation of rights. Don't enforce the "codes" against my neighbors on my behalf.

(As originally written; not as published. Yes, this is similar to other things I have written, but I felt it was "safe", considering...)

*

Donate?

Making outlandish claims with no evidence to back them up

I was just reading a comment on The Dilbert Blog where a person made the claim "Government has a significant role to play in a modern, market based economy. Those that think otherwise are badly mistaken."

Yeah, I see nonsense like this all the time, yet the person making the claim never backs it up with anything real. We are supposed to bow to their wisdom and just accept the claim as if it is a given, handed down from above.

You can have a "market", or you can have government playing a "significant role". You can not have both no matter what you believe, and no matter how much time you have spent as a priest for The State in its indoctrination camps.

Added: Yeah, it's "just" The Dilbert Blog, but if any of you out there care to drop by and give me a hand I'd appreciate it.

"Joint Land Use Resolution"

One topic that keeps showing up in the Clovis news, and that I know better than to try to write about in the Clovis paper, is the air force's "Joint Land Use Resolution" that it keeps seeking to impose on local property owners.

I have no problem with two people working out a mutually-voluntary agreement so they can both use real estate they both own- like a time share arrangement.

But this "joint land use" topic that keeps coming up is no different than me driving out to some place I think looks like a useful area (useful to me) and telling the property owners that we are going to work out an arrangement wherein I will shoot my deer rifle across their land and over their homes, and they must accommodate me. They will not be allowed to interfere nor build anything new that sticks up that I might hit. Maybe I'll even get an airplane and buzz their property. What's the difference?

This is just another bit of proof that the US military is a force for evil, not a protector of liberty.

*

Donate?

Human Failings and Libertarians

We are all human and have all-too-human failings and shortcomings. However, when considering libertarians, those failings fall short of our principles.

There is no room for revenge, or nationalism, or aggression, or racism, or thievery in libertarianism. You can still be a libertarian and harbor those things deep inside, of course, but those things are not libertarian. And if you don't get rid of them, they may come out at the worst possible moment of weakness and cause you to act in ways that violate your foundational stated principles.

If that happens and you are not bothered by it, or don't recognize the inconsistency in it, you may not really be libertarian.