"Anti-drunk driving" hypocrites

I consider most of those who claim to hate "drunk driving" to be hypocrites. And I'll tell you why (as if you had any doubt).

If "drunk driving" is so horrible to your mind, and you claim you'd do anything humanly possible to prevent it from happening, then you must support ending the risk of any legal and civil penalties for driving "drunk" right up until actual harm to another occurs. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

A person must be able to be driving and realize "Hey, I shouldn't be doing this" and stop and ask for help without the risk of punishment. Otherwise they realize they're (legally) better off to make the attempt to get where they are going without getting stopped by a reaver. It's a matter of weighing the risks.

There's a 100% risk of being molested by "the law" if you admit you need help after starting to drive (or probably even entering your car), even though you haven't hurt anyone yet, and a much smaller risk of being hurt, molested, and/or hurting someone else by driving "drunk". Which risk seems riskier to someone who might be judgement-impaired? Or, even to those who are not?

Get rid of the one needless risk, if you are serious about saving lives, or admit you just "don't like it" and don't care about the consequences of your advocacy.

.

"I don't like it!"

Going back to my previous post about the pleasure haters; I see them as suffering from the same mental lapse that many other people suffer from when they want to ban something, or claim "There oughta be a law..."

You can show them fact after fact that destroys their position, and they will keep coming up with justification after flimsy justification. But the truth of the matter is that whatever it is they want to punish or prohibit is just something they personally don't like.

And any justification beyond "I don't like it" is a lie.

It reminds me of the debates I have had with Creationists. Science and facts don't matter to them. In fact, usually they eventually wind up saying "I don't care what the facts are; I'm going to believe what I want to believe". That's fine as long as you don't impose your beliefs on anyone else, through "law" or through any other form of coercion.

.

Keep government out of holidays

Keep government out of holidays

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 23, 2011. I notice the paper bizarrely hyphenated Christmas as "Christ-mas" once in the article. Not my doing- and I double-checked to make sure.)

Merry Christmas! I hope you can take some time to appreciate all you have, and that you can spend the holiday however it brings you the most joy. I also hope you'll allow others the same liberty.

The winter solstice probably gave our prehistoric ancestors hope because the days which had been growing shorter finally stabilized. They knew from past observations that soon the days would begin to grow longer once again. It gave them reason to celebrate that spring would eventually arrive. The winter solstice was their light at the end of the tunnel. Throughout history different cultures stitched
their own celebrations, especially their own versions of "the light at the end of the tunnel" celebration, on this time of the year. The earliest recorded version of this holiday, from around 4- or 5000 years ago, was called "Zagmuk".

At this time in history "Christmas" is the name most commonly given to the holiday celebrated near the winter solstice. That's why most people use the word no matter what their personal beliefs may happen to be. Unless they have a specific reason to prefer a different celebration, or just want to be contentious.

Personally, I love Christmas. I don't care what words people use when they express good wishes for the holiday. Just as long as they are happy and friendly when they say it. I enjoy the interpersonal warmth around the holidays. I love the songs, the stories, and the decorations. I love the feeling of specialness. I love the light at the end of the tunnel, and I think celebrations are important, especially in the face of the encroaching winter.

That doesn't mean I think governments should sponsor Christmas displays, nor displays of any kind- religious or secular, since any money governments spend was taken by force from people who were given no choice, and it shouldn't be frittered away on things that some people don't consent to. Let the people celebrate unhindered; keep government dark and silent on the subject- neither endorsing nor obstructing any religion.

You have to make a real effort to be disagreeable at this time of year. Don't be twitchy if people say "Merry Christmas", or if they fail to do so and wish you "Happy Holidays" (or "Happy Zagmuk") instead. Just take it in the spirit in which it's offered and smile while you offer the greeting of your choice in return.

.

Pleasure haters

I saw a quote in an issue of Reason Magazine that just kept coming back to my mind. It was in reference to Prohibition (both the old one and the current one):

"The eternal temptation to ban things that give people pleasure"

I think it could also be expressed as "The eternal temptation to get pleasure from preventing the pleasure of others".

Either way, there are an awful lot of awful people who seem determined to try to make sure no one is having any fun. That's fine if they stick to being annoying pains in the rear. Unfortunately, the illegitimate institution of The State gives these perverts a way to exert power over others. What a messed up shame.

.

Respect for the law

Is "respect for the law" important for civilization? If so, then civilization is doomed. And it isn't our fault.

You can't have respect for something which is absurd. For me to have respect for the law, the law has to follow Natural Law. It can't be arbitrary and bizarre. It can't be counterfeit. But that is just about all it is anymore. The "law" is fake. No one with a lick of sense or any ethics at all could have any respect for it anymore.

So, if "respect for the law" is necessary in order for civilization to survive, 99.9999% or so of the "laws" on the books (the statutory "laws") must- absolutely MUST- be tossed into the garbage heap. Before it is too late. Otherwise no reasonable person can possibly have any respect for the "law". None.

.

Pinterest

Feel free to follow me on Pinterest, if you have any desire to wade into another "social site". I'm "pinning" a larger variety of things there than I blog about.

.

"Window shopping" at Baron Hats

Yeah, I know this has nothing to do with anything, but a lot of times when I would otherwise be bored I go to the Baron Hats website and daydream. It's my version of window-shopping I guess.

I see so many hats I'd buy if I had the money.

But I guess what I'd probably really do if I had the money to afford one hat from them is have my favorite hat reproduced by Baron's in quality materials and workmanship.

Someday...

.

Old postcard to Mrs. J. Proctor Moore

My mom has an old postcard that she found in- I believe- her piano many years ago. I'm just posting this so that any relatives of the people mentioned, if they happen to do a Google search on the names, might be able to get the information.

The postcard was mailed from Lamar, Missouri to Mrs. J. Proctor (Maria?) Moore, Liberal, Missouri and postmarked on January 15, 1946. Unfortunately, I am not certain of some of the names that are written. Particularly the recipient. Marie? Maria? Mavis? Marin?

It says (original spelling and all):

Tues 1000 A.M. Dear Maria (?). Sure enough colder this A.M I want to tell you I feel real proud of my work I did yester-d. I used the Maytag & it works fine. So- I washed evrything on the place that was dirty & all dried nice but two chroched rugs. I washed 4 woven and they were aft dry. So brot evrything in. have my ironing all done. I wrote to Norma (?) last night. got a letter from N.A. & Mable yester A.M. were all well. I havent been off of place. didn't go to ch Sun night too cold. Ora came in yester P.M.brot me some M (?) Im so thankful Im able to work. And may God bless you & yours.

love --- Mother

Elbert got home this am

.

Harm and hurt

I don't think "hurting someone" and "harming someone" are necessarily the exact same thing. To me it seems like it is possible to "hurt" someone without harming them. And to harm someone without hurting them.

Let me explain. I have been hurt many times. I have cut myself more times than I can count. I have had scrapes and bruises. Most of these left no lasting effects. Any "harm" was temporary. I got over it (even if it wasn't a happy thing at the moment it happened). I don't think those things really harmed me in any way.

On the other hand I have been harmed by things that left no physical damage, but that I will never really heal from. For example, I was abandoned by The Love of My Life a little over 8 years ago. That harmed me, in many ways more than any physical damage I have ever suffered- including a bike wreck that did cause lasting damage.

So, although I realize that to be hurt in any way causes at least temporary harm, I guess when I think of "harm" I am thinking of something a little more permanent.

Sometimes you might even need to hurt someone in order to protect them from harm. It's not a good position to find yourself in.

Now, that doesn't mean that hurting someone or harming them is not a violation of the ZAP; in this case harm and hurt could both be wrong. It depends if they started it. And, sometimes, someone who is innocent may be hurt or harmed by something you did, and you may still have not done anything actually wrong. Accidents happen. You might have a debt to pay in that case, and by shirking your responsibility you would then be doing something wrong.

Just something to consider.

.

More Dangerous thoughts

Why is it OK to self-medicate with ibuprofen when you have a headache, or with an antihistamine when you have allergies, or with an over-the-counter sleep aid when insomnia strikes, but not OK to self-medicate with marijuana if you are suffering from boredom?

Boredom is probably more likely to be fatal than a minor headache, nasal allergies, or temporary insomnia would be, yet it is seen as somehow "wrong" to self-medicate- using a very safe medicine, by the way- to alleviate boredom's symptoms. That doesn't make sense.

.

Dangerous thoughts

I just had a random thought. One that might be seen as dangerous by some people.

If an individual owns their own body (a foundational concept of liberty) and can therefore put anything they wish into that body, wouldn't the corollary be that they can also take anything out of their own body if they don't want it there? Even if they chose to put it there in the first place?

.

History didn't begin with "9-11"

Thinking back on the posts of the past couple of days made me realize something. For all their blathering about "history", most statists seem to act as though history began on September 11, 2001.

Nothing that happened before that counts. All the decades (or centuries) of meddling in the Middle East never happened. The world was just spinning along, like it had every day since it was created in 4004 BCE, when out of the blue, terrorists attacked and suddenly the slate of history was wiped clean and revenge was justified. Hmmm.

Interesting (lack of) perspective, I think.

.

Not every problem needs a solution

Not every problem needs a solution

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 16, 2011)

Everyone knows there are problems in the world. There is theft. There is child abuse. There is poverty. And many more. The question becomes "How do you fix it?"

While it seems most people think a new law or tougher enforcement is the answer, libertarians see those "solutions" as only exacerbating the problems. We also see the current infatuation with statutory law as a reason that so many of the problems surrounding us now seem to have no effective solution.

Not every problem can be fixed, or even should be fixed. The biggest flaw in the "Serenity Prayer" is the line "...Courage to change the things I can..." because not everything that can be changed should be changed. Real wisdom accepts that.

Another fact of reality is that any solved problem creates new problems. The trick is to make sure the problems created by your solution are more minor- easier to solve or live with- than the problem you started with. If a solution seems likely to have consequences worse than the problem, it is best to do nothing until a better solution presents itself. Always be prepared to quickly reject your solution if its unintended consequences are worse than the original problem. Laws never fair well when judged against this benchmark.

A common statutory solution for crime is to ban self defense, or at least regulate it to the point that victims of an attack who fight back will then be at risk of being attacked by the legal system. This emboldens those who care nothing about right and wrong, much less laws, which creates unnecessary hardship and fear for the people who were not doing anything wrong to begin with.

The libertarian solution for crime is, first of all, to recognize that without a specific individual who was attacked or robbed there was no crime, and then remove the barriers to effective self defense, which includes defense of property. The benefit of a doubt must be given to the person who was just going about his business; not to the one who was looking for trouble.

The same goes for other problems. Most of them can be solved, but solutions that harm the innocent are not worth pursuing. You can't be generous and caring by giving away other people's money. You can't protect the innocent by legalizing the violation of eternal human rights.

.

Confession...

Yes, I admit it. I enjoy coming up with hare-brained schemes. Most, maybe all, go nowhere. but they do bring me joy. And that is what life should have more of. And, someday, who knows. Maybe one of my ideas will bear fruit. In the meantime I'll keep thinking up more.

.

Paul or Obama petition

Here's the petition "Dedicated Dad" made for you to sign (and spread) to tell the Repubs what you're thinking: Ron Paul or Obama: Your Choice

Have fun with it.

.

Nominate Ron Paul- or else! (a bad idea?)

I don't believe in voting. Neither do I believe politics is an ethical way to get anything done. But, I wonder if or how a political threat might work. Yeah it probably violates the ZAP in that if voting is an initiation of force (which it seems it might be), then threatening to vote is advocating or delegating an initiation of force.

However, ignoring all that for a moment...

I wonder what would happen if liberty lovers, en masse, told Republicans in no uncertain terms that if they nominate anyone other than Ron Paul, we will all vote for Obama. Even if we have to register to vote to do it. Even if we otherwise would never even consider voting, period.

Think of it as putting a mortally injured, dying America out of its misery, if the offer of medicine* is refused.

Just a thought.

I may try this out on my "conservative" relatives. Or, I may post the "threat", without all this post's contemplation, and minus all the uncertainties, somewhere in this form:

Notice is hereby given to the Republican party and all Republican voters: You have a chance to do the right thing. You can nominate Ron Paul. If you nominate anyone other than Ron Paul, I will register to vote, and I will vote for Obama. I will encourage all of my liberty-loving friends, contacts, and acquaintances to do the same- even if they have not voted before or in many years. You will be throwing away your nomination by nominating anyone other than Ron Paul. Is that what you really want to do? It's your call.

Added: I just thought of a shorter way to phrase this threat: "Republicans- I will vote this time, for the first time in years. But, I will either vote for Ron Paul or I will vote for Obama. Your choice." And, no, I don't really intend to vote.

And now there's a petition, too!

(*Yeah, it could be debated whether this is medicine or a placebo. Or even a poison. I'd still enjoy seeing what Repubs would say or do if this idea went viral. I'm not perfect.)

.

Is minding your own business "dangerous"?

Once again, I'm not endorsing Ron Paul since voting lends an illusion of legitimacy to a completely illegitimate system. And because you can't vote yourself free.

However, I was talking to a "conservative" statist (a redundancy, I know) who said he thought Ron Paul was the best candidate, except that the mainstream will never accept him enough to elect him because of his foreign policy. He says, in less honest words, that it is just too dangerous to not meddle. If I used such language I would have responded "WTF?"

How has the meddling in other countries' business worked out so far? Has it kept radical individuals from killing innocent Americans? Has it spread liberty around the globe?

No to both.

Intervention is more honestly called trespassing. Intervention led to the act of aggression known as "9-11". Intervention led to all the deaths, American and otherwise, in all the unconstitutional wars (which are actually terrorism) since then. Intervention led to the death of liberty in America. Intervention grows new generations of individuals, in America and around the world, who hate the US government and who are willing to kill and die to try to hurt it. Intervention (among other Crimes of State) led to the growing worthlessness of the money in your bank account and in your wallet.

Intervention leads to more intervention in a feedback loop. It's like beating your dog because he is whining and limping. The more you beat him, the more he will whine and limp. Until he either dies or rips your throat out for being such a cruel jerk. If he dies, an interventionist will get a new dog to kick around since he needs that feeling of being a big, tough guy.

And, intervention abroad leads to the justification for intervention in your private life.

The State has no business intervening anywhere for any reason. It has no justification to exist. I got over it; I wish everyone would.

.

"Please repost this..."

Facebook. Repost this or that. Statuses expressing concern or support for cancer patients, deceased babies, victims of abuse, etc. Repost instead of actually doing anything to help.

I think facebook statuses have replaced, or at least joined, prayer as the silly "pretend to do something helpful while not really" activity.

One person doing is more helpful than a million people praying- or reposting.

.

Childish "Paternalism" and fear of Ron Paul

Most of the people I interact with in real life call themselves "conservatives". You and I both see the falsehood there. However, recently in The Libertarian Enterprise, L. Neil Smith spelled it out a little more clearly than I had ever seen done.

It inspired me to make the diagram which accompanies this post. (You can click on it to make it easier to read.)

The description of "Paternalism" fits the "conservatives" in my life to a "T".

And, it shows why they are scared of Ron Paul. He doesn't allow them to be bullies by proxy- using the military force of the US government to impose their own version of the "Paternalism" corner of the triangle on those who already have their own version of that same corner imposed on their own society. A Ron Paul presidency would get in the way of the chest thumping and swaggering.

I don't need a president or a government. I have no use for discredited myths and delusions such as The State. I don't need Ron Paul to be president over a government I have long since withdrawn consent from. But I do wonder if these "conservatives" would actually prefer to have 4 more years of Obama over Ron Paul. They will never admit it, but I think- judging by their actions and reactions- they would. They are hypocrites and crybabies. I wish I would live to see them all grow up and get over it.

.

Modernity hatred- New Luddites?

"Modernity hatred". I'm not sure what else to call what I see so much of.

You'll never find a person who likes the "old ways" more than I do. Yet, the constant hand-wringing over "new stuff" bewilders me. Cell phones, computers, the internet, fast food, birth control, some social changes, etc. If it was invented after about 1950 many people seem to recoil in horror or rail against it.

And, that would be fine if they didn't meddle with the choices and preferences of others, especially through the application of "laws".

Things change. Get used to it.

Hold onto the old things that you like, but don't insist that everyone must follow your lead (or refuse to go anywhere, depending on how you look at it). I enjoy some of the "new" stuff, too, but not all of it. The way I look at it, we can pick and choose from the knowledge of many thousands of years of humans who have come before us. From our early stone age ancestors to Steve Jobs. Why limit yourself, and why try to remove the freedom of choice from others?

I can keep starting fires with a bow/drill, keep washing with lye soap, keep using kerosene lanterns, keep eating weeds and jerky, and wear brain-tanned buckskin, but there is nothing "better" about those choices- they are just things I like. I can also use a high-tech firesteel or eat a Big Mac, when the mood strikes me without being "guilty" of anything. I would never demand you live the way I do, and I especially would never consider forcing you to live according to my wishes through "laws".

.