Natural Law and Bubble Theory

Once again, the book The Law of the Somalis (by Michael van Notten) has spoken to me about the Bubble Theory of Property Rights. (Here is the previous observation.)

Now, on page 212 I find:

"[Natural law] permits all activities that do not infringe upon the person or property of another. It takes priority over all other principles and rules that shape human society, including rules legislated by parliaments or established by contract."

Forbidding a person from simply possessing anything on his person (such as, perhaps a gun) on your property as a condition of him entering your property infringes on his person and violates Natural Law. His personal property, as long as it remains out of sight and is unused (makes no appearance outside his "bubble of personal property", does not infringe on your person or real estate in any tangible way. It may "offend" your sensibilities, but you have no right to not be offended. And any contract that attempts to negate Natural Law to suit the real estate owner's wishes is null and void since it violates Natural Law. It is exactly like the fact that slavery is not "OK, as long as you only do it on your own property".

At least, it seems clear enough to me.

.

Terms of use?

This always makes me laugh:

"Use of the ___ service and this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy."

Nobody but your lawyer believes that. Nobody. Sorry.

.

"Fascist!" "Libertine!"

There's a psychological glitch I have noticed that it seems all humans are subject to. Just as every driver who is going faster or slower than you are is an "idiot", every person who wants more or less liberty than you do is either a "fascist" or a "libertine"*.

I suppose I am probably guilty of that as well- although you probably won't find anyone who wants more liberty- for myself and for YOU- than me. So, to me, almost everyone seems to reside on the "fascist" end of the spectrum.

The thing is, I don't care how much or how little liberty you want for yourself as long as you don't try to impose your wishes on any other person. That is where the "fascists" expose themselves as the bad guys- most of them can't be content controlling themselves, but feel the urge to control you as well.

________

*This isn't to say there is anything at all wrong with being a libertine, as long as you don't aggress or steal- it's just what most people think of anyone who is more liberty-oriented than themselves. I'd probably be considered a libertine by the majority of the people, even though in reality I'm pretty boring- unless opportunities arise.

Libertarians embrace all values

Libertarians embrace all values

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 29, 2011. As originally written, not as published.)

Liberty is primary a libertarian concept, in fact, you could say it is THE libertarian concept, but a it is concept that is often borrowed and used by others.

Just as you are not a chess player if you make up your own rules for playing the game, regardless of whether or not you use the proper board and pieces, you are not a libertarian unless you advocate maximum liberty and minimum government. For the vast majority of libertarians that means living by the Zero Aggression Principle as well as you can, and accepting that you have violated your principles if you fail on occasion.

Yet, there will aways be quibbles about the meaning of "maximum liberty and minimum government". It is generally a matter of degree, but there are limits to how far you can stretch the concept without it tearing.

Personally I see maximum liberty to be the freedom to do anything that does not cause physical harm to anyone else or their private property, and does not use deception, theft, or coercion to separate others from their property. I see minimum government to be self government, also called self control. I see the existence of a statutory institution (a "State") as far above and beyond the preferable minimum government.

If someone or some group claims to be libertarian, but is advocating less than maximum liberty, or is excluding some people from those it considers worthy of maximum liberty, then that individual or group is not living up to its libertarian principles.

If an individual or group self-identifies as libertarian, but is advocating some amount of government in excess of the minimum, whatever that may be, then they are also falling short of their libertarian principles.

If some "libertarian" is excusing theft, coercion, or the rationing of inalienable human rights, for any reason, by rogue individuals or by duly-elected governments, then they are betraying their true nature and giving the lie to their professed principles.

Not everyone who claims the label "libertarian" is, nor do all those who give lip-service to "liberty" or "freedom" understand the concepts, or practice what they preach. In fact, some of those who cry "Freedom!" the loudest are its worst enemies.

.

Stealing isn't sharing

Sharing is nice. "Sharing" other people's property is theft.

This is a difference I am trying to teach my daughter. It makes me unpopular sometimes when people think I need to make her "share". If I make her do it, it is not sharing.

I don't want her to grow up as one of those idiots (such as the president, congress, and other various puppeticians and bureaucraps) who think it is nice to give welfare to poor people. Charity, with your own money- great. "Giving" money that was never yours to give, which you supported being stolen under threat of death- not such a "good thing".

I do encourage my daughter to share, and ask her to put herself in the place of the other kid. But if she chooses not to share I will not force her to hand over her toy.

And, I never let her get away with forcing other kids to share with her, either. If the other kid's parent tries to force their kid to share I ask that they not do so.

Voluntaryism makes all the difference.

.

The State as Church

I was just talking to someone about my contention that The State is today's most popular god. He disagreed that The State is analogous to a god, saying it is more like the church.

Fair enough. In fact, thinking more on it, I agree.

So the idea that it is OK for some people to rule over other people is the god, government is the religion that the god spawns, and The State is the church (the people, not the buildings) that results from that religion being put into practice.

It is still based upon a harmful delusion.

.

Dishonesty?

The only people who have known me in person and claimed I was dishonest are those I caught trying to defraud me, and I stopped them from completing their plan.

When caught, they turned the blame on me. It hasn't happened too many times, but enough that I have noticed the pattern.

I can live with that.

.

Bad words

I really don't believe there are any such things as "bad words".

However, I'd prefer my daughter not be taught to use certain words. At least not yet.

A lot of words have social consequences. I use words that have social consequences all the time- words like "libertarian", "anarchy", "liberty", and "guns"- but I am prepared for the way the words may be received by others.

The words that some other people use might have different consequences, but the consequences are still there and should be recognized. Even if they are silly.

I have never punished my kids for saying any word, even if my personal preference would be that they not use it. I'm not going to start now.

.

"Stone Soup"

My daughter has a book based on the little tale of "stone soup". It's a cute enough book, but it illustrates that most people don't understand the market.

In the book two travelers (who happen to be pigs) come to a village ("peopled" by various, occasionally cannibalistic, animals) where the residents don't want to share their food and lodging. Nowhere does the story mention that trading value for value works better than expecting a handout. The shop owners hide their wares and the banker hides all the money. No one even seems to expect that the travelers will offer to pay. I mention this glaring oversight to my daughter every time I read her this book.

In the end, the pigs do find a way to trade something for food- I suppose you could say they trade party planning skills and a bit of entertainment for food and lodging. As long as everyone is happy, it all works out.

.

Do the bad guys know they are the bad guys?

To me it is obvious that everyone who works for the government knows, if only subconsciously, that they are the bad guys.

That's why they attempt to insulate themselves from righteous retribution at the hands of their victims with the "officer safety" mantra, weapon bans, and other "laws".

If they truly believed they were doing the right thing, they wouldn't believe they need to protect themselves by violating the rights of everyone around them. Their paranoia is very informative. And it may be useful.

.

Libertarians can bridge parties

Libertarians can bridge parties

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 21, 2011. As written, not as published.)

I place a high value on liberty. My own, obviously, but also on yours. After all I only get as much liberty as I respect for all others. My own liberty, and yours, would be enhanced by living in a free society made up of free individuals.

If we are to ever have that free society, rather than going it alone and living your liberty independently while those around you suffer the ills of hidden slavery, there is a realization that needs to occur: It takes all kinds. Or at least, almost all kinds. As long as we are heading the same direction on the one issue of increasing liberty for all, I am willing to work with just about anyone.

Back when I thought I was conservative I only noticed the liberal parts of libertarianism and didn't even see the conservative parts. Those were invisible to me because they were unremarkable. I see the same thing happen in others now. Liberals only see the conservative in libertarianism and conservatives only see the liberal. Unless they are exposed to the parts they agree with first. Then they mistake the libertarian for one of their own and are shocked when confronted by the opposite position in the libertarian.

Conservatives are great advocates for some forms of liberty. They are generally pretty good about advocating for more liberty to use your property, and earn your money, as you wish. As long as it doesn't grate against their notions of morality. They are also fairly good about respecting the right of self defense and the tools to make it possible. Conservatives are generally the ones pointing out that tax rates everywhere are too high.

Liberals are also great advocates for some forms of liberty. Generally telling government to stay out of your bedroom and body. Until they decide you must be forced to make "better choices" for your own good, or unless you violate their notions of "fairness". They have been pretty good, until recently, about questioning the excuse of "national security" for endless war and domestic spying. Usually liberals recognize that a person's personal life has no bearings on the liberties that person is owed.

Libertarians can be the bridge between the two. Grasping on to the liberty advocated by others (and letting them think it is their idea) and helping make it real. This means ignoring, when possible, the authoritarian tendencies exhibited by others so that you can work together for a common goal. It means ignoring the inconsistencies if possible, while being an example of liberty for all. More often than you might imagine, others are influenced to be a little more accepting of liberty they hadn't previously considered important. That helps us all.

.

Decorating lampposts or giving one final chance?

A lot of times when people discuss the immediate aftermath of the end of The State, you hear quite a bit of talk about decorating the lampposts with the corpses of all who have worked for The State as "law" imposers, enforcers, and tyranny-enablers. But is this the best course?

Sure, after decades of abuse from these monsters, thinking of this does feel good. But, once The State collapses would none of its organs learn a lesson? Do you not think that in their fear they might try extra hard to become decent people for once?

Which increases the total amount of good in the world- killing those who have done wrong or giving them a chance to try to make up for it? Probably all but a select few deserve the chance to finally become productive and good. One last chance.

Since all "laws" against self defense will be history, and there will no longer be any exceptions for theft, murder, kidnapping, and rape by (former) agents of The State. They will have to fly right from that moment on- or else. At the first return to their old ways they can suffer the consequences.

Just don't use nice hemp rope; use the splintery crap their stupid "laws" have saddled us with.

.

Playing with idiots

Over at this blog post, I commented

Yes, there are fully automatic handguns. I'd love to shoot one someday, but I wouldn't be able to afford enough ammo to shoot for long.

Which caused "Anonymous", who seems to be obsessed with trying to insult me, guns, or libertarianism every time I post a comment over there (which is why I have renamed him "Anonymous FanBoy"), to spout

Kent, if you had a bigger dick would you still be so into guns?

To which I replied

Anonymous FanBoy- If you had a smarter mind would you still be so obsessed with me?

It's one of my most enjoyable moments in all my years of making comments to idiots!

.

Hail to The Greatest Generation!

Sometimes, when exposed to a ubiquitous myth, I want to gag.

Like when I hear the "WWII generation" called the "Greatest Generation". Really? Those who were around when the creeping socialism became a tsunami and instead of stopping it, wondered what they were entitled to, are "great"? Those who "fought it over there" and then ignored it over here, or even embraced it, are the "greatest"? I don't think so.

Sure, this is all generalization. There are no great generations; only great individuals. However, there are trends. And I just don't see enough people of that generation bucking the trend.

I'm not picking on anyone here- "my" generation has done no better, and often even worse.

No, the real Greatest Generation hasn't happened yet. The Greatest Generation will be the generation which finally stomps out collectivism and exalts liberty for ALL. Perhaps even rejects the religion of The State altogether. Not a generation that wants to collect all it feels entitled to- which was stolen from its descendants.

Is it your young children, or a generation yet to come, who will become the Greatest Generation? Help them reach that potential by giving them the love of liberty, and the understanding, to make it happen!

.

Scammed? Suck it up and move on.

When I read opinions about Social Security [sic], Medicare, and various other "welfare programs", one of the things I hear repeatedly trotted out as a reason "we can't just end it now" is that "we must keep the promises we made". Huh? Are you insane?

Let me let you in on a little secret. One particular person promised me $2 million if I would just give her one month of my life, after I had told her I didn't like her at all. Of course, then it morphed into two months, and then the dollar amount kept rising, and ... Anyway... That was years ago. I eventually found out she didn't have even $200 to her name, much less millions. I could sulk and whine about the money I am owed, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there. I was scammed and lied to. Truth sometimes hurts and none of us enjoy admitting we fell for a scam. I doubt any of us enjoy admitting we can fall prey to greed, either.

So, back to the government's scams. Now, I didn't make any promises to "seniors" or anyone else who consented to take part in any government-sponsored Ponzi scheme. Not only that, but the thieves who did make the promises are dead, and have been for a long time. Recent puppeticians are still feeding on the false promises of dead thieves, and feeding the greed of current victims of the scam. Isn't it time to let it go and stop pretending there can still be a pay out?

Yes, it is.

.

Superstitions and the Believers

Superstitions bewilder me. Well, maybe not the superstitions themselves as much as those who fall for them.

Superstitions such as "don't let a black cat cross your path", "don't walk under a ladder", "support Israel", and "unlucky thirteen". How can people believe such nonsense?

.

Escaping captivity.

If you are being held prisoner and you kill or otherwise use violence against your captor in order to escape, have you "initiated force"?

I don't believe you have.

Even if your captor is not the one who originally captured you and is being "nice" and bringing you food and water I think you are justified in using any level of force required to escape. Some people may be squeamish about this. They may have friends and family who are helping imprison people, and may not enjoy thinking of these people as bad guys. Then, there are lots of prisoners who are not behind any bars but who are no less captives.

Think about it.

.

Natural law vs Contract law

The book I am currently reading, The Law of the Somalis, had a bit in it that really struck me. The last paragraph on page 162, speaking of the complementary and contrasting nature of natural law and contractual law, said:

Whereas contract law is whatever the contracting parties may agree to so long as it is not inconsistent with natural law (emphasis mine), natural law principles and rules and the procedures for protecting and enforcing them are not as easily identified.

Which speaks to me of the Bubble Theory of Property Rights. In fact, this is the same argument, probably worded better, that I have made in the past. A contract which violates natural law is null and void on those points before it even has a chance to be enforced. Self defense and your personal property, which surrounds and infuses your physical body wherever you may be, are natural laws that can't be nullified by contract.

Or, at least that is how I see it.

.

Politicians feel pressure to act

Politicians feel pressure to act

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 15, 2011. As written, not as published.)

Politically-minded people are starting to anticipate election season. This means many of them will be asking the wrong questions of the candidates; who will be all-too willing to answer them.

We are already hearing politicians detailing what they would do about things that no government, nor any politician, has any authority to be involved in. Things like the economy and job creation, to pick a couple of prime examples.

Sure those things are important, and the natural desire of many seems to be to find or place someone "in authority" to do something beneficial for both. This path to a solution leads nowhere but over the cliff.

It's like asking me what I would do to stop dogs from scratching themselves in public. Or what I would do to stop my neighbors from watching the "wrong" television programs, or from eating unhealthy food. It is not, and could never be, within my authority no matter my job title, and even if it were, anything I might propose to do would be useless if not outright counterproductive due to unintended consequences.

Government can't create jobs other than government jobs, but government jobs don't help the economy; they diminish it. Government can also destroy jobs and prevent the market from creating jobs through regulation and taxation. The best thing government can do for job creation is to get out of the way. And the best thing government could do for the economy, along with getting out of the way of job creation, would be to shut down the counterfeiting operation at the Federal Reserve.

Yet those solutions are seen by most voters as "doing nothing", so are avoided at all costs. Politicians want to be remembered for action, even if it is the wrong one, rather than what is seen as inaction.

The best answers a candidate can give to those sorts of questions would make him unelectable, which is why America ends up with a growing economic mess and devastating law pollution, no matter which of the increasingly indistinguishable major parties takes the reins.

.

Freedom comes with limitations

Freedom comes with limitations

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 7, 2011. As written, not as published.)

The past week leading up to Independence Day made it glaringly obvious to me that few people today really know what "freedom" means. Sure, they know and use the word, but it is something like the word "Relativity" to them: something they have heard of and that they might think they understand because of how others have explained it to them. Often that explanation is in error.

Few are so completely clueless that they believe, as former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is quoted as saying in a speech back in March of 1994, that "Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."    He would want his subjects to believe that, of course, but he was completely wrong.

Freedom means doing what you want to do. Nothing more and nothing less. That can be good or it can be bad, depending on what it is you want to do. There is a responsibility that goes along with freedom.

You have a right to exercise your freedom but only within certain limits: You have no right to harm people who are not harming you and no right to violate their property rights. If, by exercising your freedom or by doing your job, you step outside these bounds, your freedom- your action- is in the wrong. As long as you operate within this constraint, your actions are not subject to another's wishes, opinions, edicts, or whims. No matter what they may tell you in an attempt to justify violating your liberty.

The question is, are you free to do anything you want that doesn't cause physical harm to someone else and doesn't steal from others or damage their privately-owned property? If not, why not?

If someone or something interferes with your ability to do what you want, limited only by the condition that you not harm others, no matter the justification used, they are not advancing freedom, but are an enemy of freedom. Those enemies of freedom are what we should be commemorating our independence from, on July 4th and throughout the year.

.