"Men's Rights"- My take on Scott Adams' post

I mentioned the Dilbert Blog's post on "Men's rights" (since deleted for "too much attention") and my relevant observations previously. So here ya go...

He posts a laundry list of supposed "unfair treatment" of men:

...examples of unfair treatment of men include many elements of the legal system, the military draft in some cases, the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men, circumcision, and the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women.

• The inequality in the legal system is a real problem, and in fact goes a long ways toward demonstrating that the legal system is entirely illegitimate. Get rid of the government's monopoly on the "legal system" and this ceases to be a real problem.

• The military draft is slavery. It is wrong no matter who is enslaved by whom. Make sure no one can ever again enslave another without facing the consequences and this isn't an issue.

• No one has a "right" to have the same life expectancy as anyone else. That's just biology and chance. Your own behavior can also impact your life expectancy, and that is neither "fair" nor "unfair". It's just reality. Which brings us to the related matter of suicide. Suicide is a choice and isn't forced on anyone. While societal pressures may contribute to a higher rate for men, the blame ultimately lies with the person who kills himself.

• Circumcision is barbaric, yet until parents, including the fathers, realize that genital mutilation is wrong, it will still happen. Guys are probably close to 50% of the problem here- we can't lay it all on anyone else.

• Government agencies set up "primarily for women" are no different than any other government agencies. The agencies are the problem; not who they are supposedly set up to benefit. The only real beneficiary is the government. Creating dependency doesn't help the women that are targeted.

Then there are the "social aspects" that he mentions. "Manners" and the fact that "society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas".

Sure, there may be some costs associated with going along, but in most cases you only impose these costs on yourself to avoid the costs of refusing. Maybe the supposed higher pay of men compared to women (something that has never happened in my favor, though) is partial compensation for men having to put up with some of this feminization of society.

In the end, civilization will be the real loser if men's natural strengths keep being suppressed. The women who steered civilization over this particular cliff (and the men who helped them do it) won't escape the consequences even while they try to blame men.

Commenting repetition

I often find myself reluctant to comment on some blogs because I don't feel like having to endlessly defend my views from the same old misguided anti-liberty objections. Once I comment I feel obligated to follow through even knowing where it will go before I start. It's like a broken record that always shows up no matter which record I think I am playing.

I was thinking about this when I read a since-deleted post on Dilbert Blog on "Men's rights". (It gained "too much attention", he said.)

I had some thoughts on his post, yet I know if I comment the debate will go the same direction it always goes when I comment (if I am not ignored). No matter what I address, or how unrelated the subject is, the objections always take the same path, and even though I feel quite capable of dealing with any of the "liberty-phobics'" objections effectively, I get tired of having to say the same thing that I have said hundreds of times, and that others are saying, and have said for hundreds of years. Yes, I often copy and paste from things I have written before, but that has become so tiresome.

Sure, I could just post and run. There is no real obligation to follow through- that is just me imposing rules on myself. It just seems it would be better to say nothing than to not carry on to the bitter (or occasionally sweet) end.

So, I'll just state my opinion on the "Men's Rights" post here.

The .009 Scam has run its course

I'm talking about adding that ubiquitous 9/10 of a cent added to the price of every gallon of gasoline.

Even considering the fact that it is stated in the posted price- it is still an attempt to psychologically trick people into believing the gasoline is a little cheaper than it really is. That makes it a scam.

It was always a dishonest practice, now it is a pointless one as well. Back when gas cost 35 cents per gallon, that extra 9/10 of a cent was a significant percentage of the price. Over 2.25%, in fact. That made it even worse.

Is your integrity so unimportant to you, as a gas station owner, that you still feel the need to skim that extra 9/10 of a cent when the gasoline costs $3.40 or more per gallon? That scammed 9/10 of a penny is now only about a quarter of a percent of the price, and will continue to be less significant as the price rises.

Yes, I realize that if a person buys 15 gallons, you get the same profit off that 9/10 of a cent whether the price per gallon is 35 cents, or $5.45. Round the price up to the next whole penny, and you can add another 1/10 of a cent to the total honestly.

I would like to see a gas station (or franchise) owner step up and publicly reject the traditional price scamming game. Just round it up to the honest whole-cent price, and publicize that you did it. I'll bet you'd get more business just as a reward for rejecting the scam. At the least, you'd be trading a dishonest psychological trick for an honest one.

Lose the tail

A libertarian who supports or advocates The State (or "borders", or any "taxation", or the military, or whatever) is being inconsistent.

It doesn't mean he is not a libertarian. He is like a human being with a tail. The tail does not mean he is not human, but the tail is not a human feature. It is an anomaly. It is an inconsistency.

(OK, I'll admit it, I always wanted a tail. A big fluffy wolf tail would be nice. But that's another issue.)

When the game is rigged against you...

...refuse to play the game anymore.

Sure, it would be better if you refused to "play" as soon as you realize it is rigged whether you are on the losing side or the winning side. Most people just don't realize the game is rigged unless it is rigged against them. That's just human nature.

Marriage is rigged against men- not due to the institution of marriage itself, but due to "legal" interference. Why anyone would want government to sanction or regulate their relationships is beyond me.

Voting and politics is rigged against liberty. It is simply not possible to vote for a real increase in liberty. The system selects against anyone who even understands liberty and could make a positive difference.

Employment is now rigged against men, especially "white" men. I have been told, right to my face- in person, that I could not be hired because I was a "white male". They still took my application in order to give the appearance of fairness, but at least I was warned not to expect anything to come of it.

There may be other things that are rigged that I simply haven't run up against, or noticed. Maybe because they are rigged in my favor.

I have nothing against those who benefit from the rigged game. Very few of them had anything to do with it. Almost none of them even see that anything is rigged, since as I said before it is hard to see that things are rigged unless they are rigged against you.

I intend to not play when I discover a rigged game. I'll find a more suitable one or establish my own game, instead. Agorism is a good example of one response to a rigged game.

Morality vs Ethics- the definitions

I don't mean the same thing when I use the words "morality" and "ethics". I do not consider those words to be interchangeable, but to have discrete meanings, at least when I use them now.

Briefly:
Ethics = objective right and wrong.
Morality = subjective right and wrong; "situational ethics".

More detailed version:

When I think of "morality" I think of what the majority believes is right, here, now, in this situation. Usually it is a religious majority, but not always. Often, today, it is a collectivist statist majority (which, actually, is still a religious system).

This belief can (and usually does) change over time. It can be founded upon actual right and wrong, but only incidentally. It is usually very subjective, even though those who base their opinions upon it claim vehemently otherwise. Murder is objectively wrong and can be considered immoral, but so can silly things like smoking pot or having sex with certain consenting individuals. And murder can also be considered "moral" in some cases, if The State or a religion says it is OK. Morality can be based upon whatever is "legal" or criminalized. In this case, an act may be "moral" one day, and "immoral" the next. This is absurd to the extreme!

(Note: I have been told that what I am calling "morality" is actually "mores". So, to clarify this point, because I'd rather be right than be stubborn, I looked up the word "mores", and I got this definition:
"the essential or characteristic customs and conventions of a community". No, that's not what I am talking about. Customs and characteristics of a community might partly encompass morals and ethics, but seems separate from both.)

Ethics are what I think of as objective right and wrong. Unchangeable regardless of the prevailing culture. Based upon the Zero Archation Principle, and the recognition that such acts are never within your rights-- no matter what pretty names you give them, and no matter which "authority" claims in this instance they are OK. Ethics stay rooted in place.

Added: I just saw the best explanation ever, from "The Wrath of Khan", concerning the difference between the two:

"Ethics stem from the objective and reciprocal claims to self and property ownership. 

Morals stem from the subjective value judgments of self and property worth. 

Ethics exclusively concern rights and violations thereof. Morals concern values and violations thereof. Force can only be used when rights are violated. Social pressure when societal norms are violated."

Another great explanation of the difference between morality and ethics comes from R R Schoettker:

"To me ethics is the distinction between right and wrong behavior and a preference for doing the right in practice while morality is just the collective social approximation of this structured so that at any particular time or place whatever is expedient for the majority is roughly adhered to. As any honest observer can attest a mere social morality can still encompass a significant degree of plainly unethical behavior." 

.

"Thank you for your service"?

I read something in the weekly local paper that really pissed me off. It's probably better to vent a little here than to send another letter to the editor. This paper has no website, so I can't link to the original, unfortunately.

It was about some poor young deluded State pawn who was injured while in the military.

While committing the evil act of occupying a foreign country (Iraq) for "his" government, he was injured by a roadside bomb set by the locals. Of course, those defending their own territory were referred to as "terrorists" in the article. Sorry, but the invaders are the terrorists, not those using violence* to kill the invaders. But, The State's tools will never face that reality since it would require them to accept that they are the bad guys who would not get injured or killed in Iraq if they stopped doing the wrong thing.

The misguided kid then spoke of how anxious he is to get back to Iraq so he can continue killing people for the US government. He repeated the common hypnotic chant "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" as his justification for getting his rocks off murdering people. No, you poor idiot; you fight them over there and give them a reason to come over here and fight. For generations yet to come. You are endangering your family, your yet-to-be-born children, your friends, and your neighbors by your acts of aggression and your total lack of ethics. And you are endangering me and those I love, too. Inexcusable!

Then, the columnist got all philosophic about how young fools, pardon- "heroes", like this are shouldering the burden of defending America. He wrote of the sacrifices they make, and how their families never know when they could be sent overseas, or whether they will ever come home. He is so proud of them. I could gag.

You are NOT "defending your nation"; you are propping up a corrupt global empire. Good job.

So, yeah, "Thank you for your service" in killing innocent people who are no threat to anyone who isn't being an aggressive invader.

Better yet, learn what Liberty really means, and STOP supporting those who are destroying it. Choose the right side to support against those who are the real threat. You won't even need to travel very far, and certainly won't need to cross any oceans.

*A bomb is indiscriminate, and could have injured innocent people as well, so I don't think this is an acceptable way to defend yourself or your home in most cases. "Collateral damage" is NEVER acceptable; not at any level. Yet, when the invaders are so technologically superior, sometimes you may feel forced to do things that are wrong and face the consequences, while recognizing you are stepping beyond what you have a right to do. I can't state categorically if this is the case in this instance.

----

Donate?

Legislators need to rethink laws

Legislators need to rethink laws

(As originally written; not as published)

The poll which appeared in this paper, concerning "The Portales Ten"- the individuals charged with the "crime" of gambling at the Portales Country Club- gives me hope. It showed that a substantial percentage of those who took the poll recognize that laws can be wrong.

A third of the respondents took a libertarian view. Perhaps it was the soft libertarian view, which even the early Supreme Court agreed with, that "laws" which are not based upon specific Constitutional authority are already null and void without further action. That is encouraging. Perhaps some of those respondents even thought more deeply and recognized that if the "law" violates the basic human right to live as you see fit, as long as you don't cause actual harm to any innocent individual, the "law" is illegitimate.

The people who voted that the "law" needs to be changed so that travesties like this don't occur in the future are at least pointing in the right direction. Perhaps they actually agree more with libertarians, while still wishing to remove the specter of arrest for those who dare cross the misguided "law". Perhaps they still feel an obligation to obey "laws" even in cases where the "law" is obviously wrong, until they are able to convince The State to agree with them. As more and more things get criminalized, this feeling will fade.

The only ones I really pity are those who voted "Yes. The law is the law" and those who violate it should be charged. This is the position that is completely devoid of any ethical compass whatsoever.

"Laws" are suggested, written, passed, and enforced by fallible individuals and are wrong-headed as often as not, even in the best of circumstances. In recent decades the balance has shifted so that the vast majority of "laws" are now counterfeit "laws"- they are written in "legalese" so they look like a real law, and they are enforced against people with force up to, and including, deadly force- yet they are not based upon the necessary foundation- the protection of an individual or his property from coercion- that underlies all real law. Counterfeit "laws" are an attempt to regulate or control something other than aggression or theft/fraud.

Everything that is actually wrong, and a great many things that are not, was already illegal centuries ago. New legislation is just a jobs program for people who can't do anything constructive. Society needs no new "laws"; it just needs to get rid of, or ignore, the bad ones. The only thing, if any, that a legislative body should be doing nowdays, rather than passing new "laws" or trying to patch bad "laws" to make them less bad, is abolishing counterfeit "laws". That would keep them busy for decades.

The Bradley Manning Conundrum

I'm torn on the whole Bradley Manning thing.

One one hand it is ridiculous to claim that exposing State wrong-doings is a crime. It is obvious (to rational people) that the punishment being imposed on him is way out of proportion to what he is accused of doing.

One the other hand he DID join the military. Didn't he know that the military is nothing but an organization, funded with stolen money, manned by mind-numbed slaves, set up for the purpose of building and maintaining a liberty-destroying empire, and for killing and destroying the enemies of evil authorities?

As they say, dance with the Devil and you're gonna get burned.

Maybe he didn't know any better when he joined the military. Maybe he knows better now and wouldn't make the same mistake again. He's not in a position to tell us if he now knows that the US government is a terrorist organization (with America as its main target) and he was helping it spread its particular brand of terror across the globe by being one of its drones. If he could, would he apologize now for helping the bad guys before he exposed them? Was his "leak" his apology? I'm afraid we will never know.

*

Donate?

Gangs are for pussies

As I do things around town I see a lot of pinheaded, gang-wanna-be graffiti. It makes me shake my head in pity at the poor idiots who wrote it.

If you want to intimidate the rest of us, become literate or find someone who IS to write your stupid garbage. I mean, seriously, I don't care how scary or "bad" you think your pathetic, idiotic gang is, when you can't spell the simplest words, or when you write letters so illegibly that no one knows what your chest-thumping threat might have been intended to be, you just come off as a moron.

Oh, and your sad artwork of your "magnificent" (snork) body parts doesn't work either. Everyone has body parts. Plus, if I was that deformed I don't think I'd wanna illustrate the problem so everyone could laugh.

Yeah, I know, you are too scared of the rest of us to try to be an individual. You feel safety in numbers. But find "numbers" who aren't as pathetic as you to hang around with. You'd be amazed how much your life would improve, and your fear would go away. People wouldn't have a reason to kill you on sight. Stop being a pussy*.

(* "Pussy" as in a soft, weak, scared, cowardly individual, not as in "feline" or any other meaning.)

"The Fred Incident"

Years ago I told a little of this story, but I think I'd like to set it all down now. I call the whole thing "The Fred Incident". The names may have been changed- or not, but you'll never know.

A few years ago I had a friend who would talk with me about his displeasure with the governmental status quo just about anytime we got to talk. I had known him for a couple of years and I trusted him and thought he sounded pretty reasonable.

He had told me he had been diagnosed as "paranoid/schizophrenic", but that he really wasn't. My only early warning was when he mentioned that he had an "alien implant" (and this was only a couple of weeks before "the incident"). I thought he was joking, and didn't think more of it. We had many long phone conversations about just about anything. He never seemed dangerous or anything.

Until "the incident".

He had loaned me, without prompting, some money to use to help a family that we both knew, and that I was staying with. I used it to buy food for the household. The next day at karaoke he asked what I had spent the money on and I told him. That was a little strange since he had loaned it to me specifically to buy food.

He seemed a little agitated. I still had the receipt and I offered it to him. We sat and talked and he started claiming I had tricked him into loaning me the money. I was a little shocked as it had been his idea. If there had been any way possible to do so, I would have paid him back immediately in order to avoid any problem, but I couldn't.

He began talking again about his "implant". He said the military had put it there decades ago. Unfortunately, I didn't take him seriously and made some joke about putting magnets inside his hat to scramble the signal. This got a red-faced spittle-laced lecture about electrical engineering. Then it began to get more personal.

The real fireworks began. He started saying that I was controlling his mind through his "implant" and that I was a "Martian". I told him that I was pretty certain I was human. He said "Why would you say that? Are you not positive?" I said I was, and he said "That is just what a Martian would say". He was getting extremely angry, too. He began pounding his fist on the table and his face was very red. I was trying to just get him calmed down at this point, but everything I did he saw as me trying to use my "Martian thought-control powers" to manipulate him.

He said I was able to force people to do things they didn't want to by getting inside their heads. He claimed I was inside his mind, reading his thoughts and putting my own in there, too. This is how I had tricked him into loaning me the money.

He became more and more upset. He spoke of the significance of his name and his initials. He went into a long discussion about his initials (M.A.T.), claiming that they were significant and meant he was to be an emissary between the Martians and Terrans. He laid out his "logic" in fine detail. Then he went on about other people's names and initials, especially focusing on John Denver.

He spoke of his own power and importance, but said he couldn't "claim to be God" (I suppose that should have been a relief).

He was talking about being in "Army Intelligence" back in the early '70s, and that he was still "in", but it was a secret. The more he spoke, the more unreal his claims became. He told of trying to drive to the Pentagon once in the middle of the night to carry out some mission, and stopping on a bridge instead of going through with it. I can't remember the specifics of this particular tale, but only that it seemed very improbable and yet I could tell he really believed it.

He claimed to be killing people "in high government positions" with mental feedback through his implant. He said he could "see" people being carried out of the Pentagon in body bags- people who had short-circuited their brains by trying to mentally influence him. His brain was stronger and was able to resist the bad things they were trying to get him to do, so he said.

He then asked me to knock him unconscious so I could kidnap him and a girl he wanted (he wanted me to knock her out, too), and take them somewhere they couldn't be tracked. He said that the only way his implant would not be able to lead his enemies to him is if he was unconscious and unable to know where he was being taken.

He did eventually calm down and I got out without harm. It was about 2 AM at this time. The next morning, very early, I called and warned the girl he wanted me to help kidnap. She freaked out a little because he had just called her up and was going to come over in about an hour. She didn't wait to hear the whole story, but hung up to call him with some excuse, then called me back to find out what had happened.

After this, I obviously wasn't close to him anymore. He was still in my circle, but I did warn a few people to watch out. Some of them never did believe that he had acted that way. One mutual friend had even been in the vicinity during his fit, but hadn't seen anything unusual. Yet, he did slip up to a couple of other people. He mentioned blowing my head off to mutual friends a few times when I sang a karaoke song he thought was written especially for him, but most never saw his bizarre behavior, and downplayed my concerns.

Added: I know now, due to encountering more people like him, that he likely suffered from the belief that is now known as being a "targeted individual".

.

Preferences vs principles 2: the other side of the coin

As I said previously, most of my personal preferences could be said to be "conservative". But not all. There are a few things that could be seen as "liberal".

For example:

I despise religion of any sort. It's your business if you want to worship something/someone as long as you don't try to coerce anyone else to go along. That means you don't base "laws" on your superstitions.

I also have a lot of skepticism of "traditional morality" when it comes to sex and "family". I don't think the traditional family works too well for a lot of people. Maybe most people can force themselves into that too-round hole, but in a lot of cases it isn't a comfortable fit.

I also doubt that punishment does much to change behavior. Instead I'm afraid it simply reinforces an "us vs them" mentality in those who are punished- especially when the punishment is out of proportion to the act (such as in the case of ALL counterfeit "laws"). And I trust no State enough to give it the "authority" to kill people for any reason. (The ONLY legitimate death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer.)

Preferences vs principles

Most of my personal preferences, when I have a preference, could be described as "conservative".

I want to be able to carry guns everywhere I go without any "authority" having any say in it whatsoever.

I have no desire to use drugs without a real medical need.

I have no desire to marry a man, nor to have sex with one.

I know taxation is theft, and welfare is destructive.

I recognize that "affirmative action" is just racial or sexual discrimination codified by "law".

However, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that making "laws" against non-aggressive consensual behavior by others is wrong. Actually "wrong" isn't a strong enough word. Not just "not nice" or "controlling", but absolutely, horribly evil. There is no excuse for it.

Poll contains a surprise

I was surprised that the results of this poll, which I found on the local paper's website, were so evenly split. As evenly as it is possible to split them, in fact. I was glad the spare point went to the only reasonable response.

I would interpret this poll (related to this case) to show that of those who responded, the top bar represents those who would fit the "conservative" profile; the middle bar would be those who (in this case, at least) favor a more libertarian approach; while the bottom bar are those I would consider "progressives".

Of course, the case could be made to swap the top and bottom.

The main reason I consider the bottom bar to represent those of leftward inclinations is that they are the ones who advocate changing things such as drug "laws" to legalize marijuana use rather than simply recognizing that a bad "law" carries no authority.

On the other hand, "the right" also works to change gun "laws" that happen to bother them... so maybe there is (once again) no real difference between "left" and "right"; it's always about authoritarian or libertarian after all.

Hair!

Sometimes I wonder if I would be taken more seriously if I looked more "conventional". Very often the only comments those who disagree with me can come up with are based upon my appearance- "You look so unkept..." - "Get a haircut Kent..." etc.

So, I should get a nice jackboot mohawk / idiot rug like so many LEOs do nowdays so people would "respect" me?

No thanks. If that's what it takes to be taken seriously, I'll pass.

My thought is that maybe if some of those people would grow some hair it might protect their brain from radiation damage- or whatever is causing their inability to think.

(This isn't directed at anyone who has short hair and doesn't demand that the entire world adopt their own personal style. It's only directed at the idiots who think there is something noble or superior in having short hair.)

Principles cannot be compromised

Principles cannot be compromised

It is often necessary to compromise face-to-face, but to compromise when stating principles means you have none.

Something I read a few days ago had someone referring to themselves as "ideologically extreme, behaviorally moderate". I liked that phrase.

I am serious about libertarianism. I also know that as long as someone is not attacking anyone, either physically or economically, no one has the right to try to force them to stop whatever they are doing. In that case there is always room for compromise if the other person will agree to keep their hands off your body, your property, and your life, both personally and legislatively, as long as you are not harming any innocent person. Remember that being offended is NOT the same as being harmed since harm must involve actual physical or economic damage.

Unfortunately, this proves to be difficult when people believe they have the right or the authority to control the non-aggressive, consensual behavior of those around them. But there is no such right and the authority is never real.

That is why compromise seems so difficult when a libertarian is trying to deal with a person who believes it is right to use force against someone who is not using force or stealing. All the "compromise" that such a person proposes is about how much the liberty of the other will be violated. That is not "compromise", it is losing ground that can't be regained; it is standing aside while someone harms you.

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

*

Donate?

My daughter's unfortunate desire

We live across the street from an elementary "public school" playground.

My 3 1/2 year-old daughter sees the kids playing at recess and longs to join them. She begs to go to school.

When I try to tell her the truth about school, her mother and my parents think I am trying to brainwash her. I'm simply telling her that what she sees the kids enjoying (and most of them are seemingly enjoying themselves during recess, though some are being victimized and bullied) is NOT school. It is the joy of a brief break from the tedium that is "school".

I tell her that school is all about sitting still and being quiet and being talked (down) to. I haven't even gotten into the worst of it. The part about being trained like a Pavlovian dog to regulate your body to the ringing of bells - the part about being trained that The State is "how it's always been done, so it's the only option"- the part of being trained to submit to "authority" even when the demands are stupid and/or harmful.

She doesn't believe me. I'm not the kind of person to forbid her from trying school if that is what she really wants, but I know once in the system, it would be much harder to drop off the radar. I'd probably be forced to move and leave no forwarding address.

Repeating myself

Human Being-

I am a human being, and a Homo sapiens, and a man, and a "naked ape", and a person. These are ways of just saying the same thing with different words. That describes the species I am; what my DNA sequence would indicate to anyone checking it. To a large extent the information in those labels will also describe the conditions needed for my continued survival, which individuals I would be able to reproduce with (and what offspring would result), my size range, and in a general way, my appearance. It would also eliminate the possibility of me being a fish, even if I claimed to be one. Even if I spent a lot of time swimming. And, conversely, it provides a standard to compare others' claims. If a garden slug is claiming to be human in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, it is easy to see the claims are not true, using a variety of tests and observations. A claim doesn't make a thing true.

Libertarian-

I am also a libertarian, and an anarchist, and a sovereign individual, and a voluntaryist. These are also just ways of saying the exact same thing with different words. This description shows I value the rights and liberty of each individual. It shows I recognize I have no right to initiate force. It shows I have no room for double standards for those who reserve the authority to initiate force or theft/fraud on innocent individuals. If someone claims one of these descriptive labels, but does not fit the description, then it is simple to see the lie. If you promote a "government solution" to anything, or if you are a bomb-throwing destroyer of innocent bystanders or their property, you are NOT any of the above. You are an authoritarian thug even if you claim otherwise.

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.