Uninventing the wheel

I see civilization as a wheel. Simple and effective.

Statists look at that wheel and worry about what might go wrong, and decide they need to make that wheel "better".

So, they chip away at its roundness by encumbering that wheel with "laws" and regulations and red tape, until the wheel is no longer a functional wheel. It may still roll along- barely- but it is no longer even really round. And, it is now more dangerous, which makes the statists point to the dangers that their meddling has created and say it shows a need for more chiselwork.

Civilization needs to be rid of The State and its insane supporters. The sooner the better.

.

We all have our hobbies...

Sometimes, I admit, I really enjoy playing with statists.

As long as both sides can keep it civil.

It's just too easy to poke holes in their "arguments". Sometimes, it takes a lot of words- depending on how many separate delusions are involved, and are addressed. But it is never really hard; just time-consuming.

Is this a personality flaw of mine?

.

Rich-bashing

A facebook friend sent me a link to the article 6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying. He asked if I would address author David Wong's points. Wow. I don't even know where to start.

I guess the main thing that overshadows everything else is that if a guy got rich honestly, his money is none of your business. No matter how much he has, and no matter if he hoards it or invests it. And, if he got his money by theft, fraud, or by using government (yes, I just repeated myself there), then it doesn't matter if he is still hasn't gotten rich. Dishonest money isn't more dishonest just because there is more of it.

All in all, this Wong character sounds like a whiny, envious, "It's not fair" kind of guy, who also doesn't know the first thing about the reality of economics. Well, as Scott Adams so eloquently put it, fairness is "a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments". It is not a feature of reality.

There is just so much wrong with Wong's whine that I'm not going to even try to address everything he is wrong about. It would take a book.

So, by his numbering, here is what I think of his whine:

#6- He begins by saying that rich people who claim that $500,000 doesn't necessarily make you rich are oblivious. Maybe. I don't live in a particularly expensive area, or a big city, so I can get by on less. I'm not going to judge how much money someone needs to live where they choose to live, even if it's a "huge amount" by my standards. I also know that "rich" is subjective, and that's something Wong doesn't seem to get. Also, once again, whether someone is rich or poor, you don't get to decide to take their money away to use as you wish, even if you decide they have "too much". Sorry.

#5- He feels insulted that "rich" people claim to have worked hard to get their money. There's that old "fairness" thing again. Sure, I would like it if being a hard-blogging libertarian philosopher paid really well. But it doesn't and it isn't likely to ever do so. I do not have the inclination to do the kinds of things that rich people do to make money. Maybe I don't even have the ability. That isn't a rich person's fault, even if it also isn't my fault. Maybe that's just how the Universe works. Suck it up and move on. Sometimes, things you value are not things other people value. Sometimes "hard work" doesn't equal "valuable work". Or, they are things that anyone could do- no "skill" or unusual talent involved- so there isn't much reason to pay a lot for them. If that's the case, I'm sorry, but that doesn't entitle you to punish people who had marketable skills that pay well, or people who happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right talents.

#4- Wong then complains that rich people claim that if they got rich, so can you. I've encountered this one myself. A guy I used to know pretty well made money with everything he touched. He couldn't lose. He couldn't understand why everyone (particularly, me) wasn't wealthy. He kept telling me that making money was easy. Yet, here I am- still broke. But I don't blame him at all. There were things that were very easy to me that he couldn't do. It's just that my talents didn't bring financial reward while his did. I could have been bitter and jealous of him, or I could have kept counting him as a friend. I chose the happier path. Wong's error is the "slice of pie fallacy". Listen, wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie where if you have a bigger slice, mine is automatically smaller. No, the bigger your slice of the pie, the bigger the entire pie grows, and the better my chance of getting a bigger slice becomes. Mr. Wong, your ill-informed rant hurts us all by misleading other ignorant people into agreeing with you, and damaging the economy as a result. I hope you get smarter before you do too much damage- if anyone is listening to you.

#3- Then he complains that rich people say he is just jealous because they "made it" and he didn't. I agree there. His whole tirade stinks of jealousy and envy (and the echo still repeats "but it's not fair!"). I am not jealous of "the rich". I'd love to join them someday (if I could do so without losing more than I gain- which seems unlikely). I think most people who bash the rich do so in the belief that by bringing them down, they will somehow gain. What a pathetic desire to have. You could also have an advantage if you blinded everyone else in the world. But it doesn't make you better in any way. Wong believes he has a right, as a part of "society", to judge you for how you choose to spend your money. He believes you answer to him when you spend. And if he disagrees with your choice, he will call you names and advocate that The State steal more of your money to give to him. Because, if you don't spend your money the way he wants you to, then you are acting like a supervillain who lives on an island by himself. Pitiful creature, Mr. Wong is. Grasping at those straws that make him feel justified in advocating theft.

#2- Next Wong goes off on the "rich person's" claim that "You Shouldn't Be Punishing the Very People Who Make This Country Work!" He doesn't understand how value is created. He believes that the labor of poor people is why the factory is profitable. He forgets that the poor people had to have the factory provided by someone in order to use their labor to create the profit. Will those poor people band together to build the factory? They could... but will they? It sure doesn't happen very often. You need someone with the money to help you make your products and money. Perhaps Wong believes this is the place of The State. Perhaps he is wrong again. It's funny how much this contradicts his whole "no man is an island" thesis that he uses elsewhere. The poor could just get along fine if only those pesky rich people didn't have any "extra" money to spend on infrastructure along with the caviar. Please! The rich already "pitch in" in more ways, and to a greater degree, than Mr. Wong can wrap his mind around. He isn't asking them to "get something down from a very tall shelf because nobody else can ... reach it", he is ordering them to get it down because he is too lazy to bring over the step ladder. Anyone would balk when you order them to do your job for you while you point a gun at their head.

#1- Finally, he pushes his collectivist view that everyone is just as parasitical as he is, and that claiming that you should stop asking for handouts is just mean. Or delusional. I don't care if someone asks for handouts. What I hate is when they demand you hand over your property at the point of a gun. It doesn't matter to me if they are using their own gun and putting their own life in peril, or using the State's gun and stealing through democracy. You have no right to any other person's property. Go ahead: ask for handouts. Just don't think you are entitled to them. And don't expect people not to look at you as a whiny, selfish, lazy parasite.

A funny footnote. In the column Wong says "all civilization and morality rests on the fact that we have to answer to each other - the only reason I haven't murdered a dozen people in traffic is because society will bring consequences if I do." That's the classic collectivist's admission. It crops up in almost every conversation with a statist if they talk long enough. And, remember that these are the very people who seek political office and bureaucratic jobs. They simply redirect their murderous tendencies into jobs where they can cause pain to others without being punished for it. And I'm supposed to "honor" their choice? I don't think so. I don't murder people because it is wrong to attack the innocent, not because I fear the consequences. It's really not a hard decision to make. Am I that much better than the Wongs of the world?

.

Why "dollar"?

I posted the following comment in response to this essay concerning "face value" of private money:

I think it would be useful for voluntary currency to ditch the "dollar" face value for something that doesn't need to move up or down. How about a face value in "vollars"? Or something that sounds less like "dollar". An ounce of minted copper could be one "vollar", and other coins could be valued in multiples of that. Or, if an ounce of silver is used as the vollar, you could have fractional values for smaller coins and copper. Then, somewhere, there could be a published exchange rate between vollars and dollars.

I think that tying face value to something that is doomed, like the dollar, is a bad idea, and dangerous, too, as Bernard von NotHaus discovered. I'm not interested in "dollars", but in money. Value. Hmmm. So, maybe the currency could be called "Valors". (I still like my own "Silver Dubloons".)

Whatever... I even designed a symbol that could be used for a voluntary currency like the "$" is used for dollars:

Liberty is better

Even if there were some problem that liberty made worse, I would still support liberty. Liberty improves the odds that a real solution, rather than some bandaid, will be found.

However, the case is usually that when liberty is supposedly making some situation "worse", it really isn't. Maybe the situation isn't perfectly solved, but the State solution is always just as bad, and it fails to enhance individual liberty making a true solution less likely to be found.

All else being equal, I would consider more liberty, even if the underlying problem is unchanged, to be a net gain.

And, in every instance I have really picked apart (so far), liberty actually makes the underlying problem less of a problem. Regardless of the claims of the statists.

.

Anger: the anti-liberty

There is a place for anger. When you see injustice, and rights being violated, it is only human to get angry. The danger is that in your anger you will strike out in such a way that you become just as bad as that which angers you.

If your anger leads you to advocate a "governmental solution", then your anger is only leading to more trouble. There is ALWAYS a better way, even if you haven't yet thought of it.

There are things that make me angry. However, if my knee-jerk reaction is "There oughta be a law..." or a desire for enhanced punishment from the State, I know I am off-track somewhere and I need to re-examine my thinking processes. And, when I run into such things from another liberty advocate, I know they are dealing with some inconsistencies (or pain) in their life that need to be addressed. And, I need to remind myself to not let it make me angry.

.

Church, state will never separate

Church, state will never separate

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 3, 2012, with a paragraph, which I had removed for the newspaper's consumption, reinstated.)

Much is made of the separation of Church and State, but the truth is that while Church and State sometimes temporarily separate, on the insistence of those who get caught in the middle, they will never divorce. They were made for each another.

Church is possibly a little older than her partner, but she hides her age well by getting a face-lift every few years. State just matures and gets more efficient, sly, and paranoid as he ages.

Church and State grew up together. Theirs was a tumultuous childhood; both were very cruel as children. Church enjoyed torturing, even killing and burning, animals and people, while State focused his attention on people. Both have encouraged people to fight one another on their behalf. Both Church and State have always insisted on being supported by their neighbors, claiming that this was so they could protect the people from unseen, or exaggerated, threats. Except for some rather horrible tantrums, both have gotten better at hiding their natures from casual observers as they've gotten older, and even today most people will come to their defense.

No one knows when Church and State first married; it seemed as if they had always been a couple. They slap each other around a lot, and do a lot of shouting and cussing at one another- because it isn't a peaceful marriage, but it is a convenient arrangement that neither wants to end.

Church and State will each occasionally do something good for society, in order to encourage people to say how essential they are. Each partner has their supporters, and some people actually support both. A very small minority support neither, and throughout history this demographic hasn't usually fared well at the hands of the couple's fans. Yet, neither Church nor State has been very loyal to their ardent supporters.

No one objected to the marriage for many years, until a few people decided Church and State would be less harmful- to each other or to innocent bystanders- if they could be kept apart. This separation is opposed by those who want the couple to stay together in order to use them against specific enemies. Only the naive believe that this pair will ever be limited to bullying bad guys.

So, a while back there was a more concerted effort to split up the couple, and a separation- at least on paper- finally happened. However, it was only for appearances. The couple may live in different apartments but they are still "friends with benefits" and only give lip service to the separation when it seems useful. Most people try really hard to pretend they don't see the nudging and winking in public. But, knock on one partner's door and the other will usually be sitting on the couch, perfectly at home, in the background.

The truth remains that while you may believe the couple is separated, they are still married and will never divorce. There's just no real reason to. They are too comfortable with the status quo and gain too much from the marriage. 'Til Death do They Part.

.

Reaping what you sow

If I attack any innocent person, I deserve to be killed by that person, or by someone defending them. I have a right to defend myself from their defensive, actions, but make no mistake- I am the one on the wrong side. It wouldn't matter if I pinned a badge on my chest or if I was in Pakistan wearing a military uniform. The one initiating force deserves whatever he gets. Period. I have no legitimate reason to whine about "proportionality"- if I don't want to be maimed or killed in self defense I shouldn't attack.

I just don't feel sorry for aggressors who reap the fruits of their actions. Even when the person they are attacking is worse than they are. In fact, I find it very humorous when bad guys clash, as long as no innocent person is hurt in the crossfire.

Let them all arm themselves however they want, and I'll seek shelter until they have all "honored" themselves to death. Good riddance to these burdens on civilization.

.

"I don't support the military"

Sometimes I wonder if I should just keep my mouth shut.

Yesterday as I was relaxing at home, the doorbell rang. That's a very rare occurrence, since few people (other than family) will enter the gate to come to the door. I went to the door and it was a college-age guy from the nearest university selling "cow-pie bingo" tickets. I listened to his sales pitch and was just about to ask the price when he mentioned that the proceeds were to be used to help military families in some way. I politely cut him off by saying "Sorry, but I don't support the military".

He thanked me for my time and left.

I wonder if he had ever gotten that response before. I wonder if others feel the same as I do, but are scared to say so in this religio-militaristic area. If he had asked for an explanation I would have told him that I support the militia, but not government-owned militaries. I would have told him that "the troops" are not fighting for "our freedom" but are putting me and my family- and his- in mortal danger by creating hatred for Americans, and growing an unending crop of new "terrorists" every day. I would have explained that "taxation" is really nothing more or less than pure theft. But he didn't ask, so we left it at that.

I hate myself when I keep silent in the face of such assumptions, but afterward I always wonder if speaking up, even politely, will put me on another "list".

.

"Operation #EFAD"

Yes, just do it. I did. To scare the authoriturds and puppeticians, if nothing else.

I also have the paper edition, and while I don't agree with every detail of Bracken's politics, it should be a very scary book for our real enemies.

.

Breakfast of Zombies

I have an idea for a new breakfast cereal. So, instead of emailing Kellogg's or General Mills, where they could claim the idea as their own and deny it was my idea first, I'll put it all down here. And, yes, I know cereal probably isn't the healthiest thing to put in your body, but it's just an idea that I think could be very profitable.

What is it that kids seem obsessed with these days? Zombies. I haven't seen any zombie-related cereals. So, my idea is...

"Zom-bits- they're apocaly-cious!" Most of the pieces would be shaped like brains. Maybe some hands, feet, and other body parts/organs too. Colored pink (speckled with red). If heart-shaped pieces are included they could be red.

Now, write the cereal companies, send them this link, and demand they buy the idea from me and let the little pop-culture-influenced zombies enjoy Zom-bits.

.

No meaning behind Constitution

No meaning behind Constitution

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 27, 2012. Now, read it and tell me if the headline seems appropriate to my message. Sigh.)

I'm not a big fan of the US Constitution because, as has been pointed out by numerous observers for well over a century, it either established the criminal government we now suffer with, or it did nothing to prevent it. That doesn't mean it is worthless, though. I think it is very useful for illustrating which politicians and government employees belong in chains rather than on your payroll.

If a hypothetical politician or bureaucrat actually cared to stay legal and adhere to the Constitution, he would need to recognize that it would be safer to fail to do something that the Constitution authorizes than to do something it does not. I wonder why that never seems to occur to any of them.

I suppose the answer is that it is more fun to do things than to refrain from doing things. There is no rush of adrenaline in the power of restraint. There is no bluster and swagger in it. Scrupulously staying legal to the point of erring on the side of restraint would take away all the fun of governing for those drawn to that lifestyle.

Think of all the government activities that could not be justified by a Constitutional politician who knew that he would need specific authorization for each and every action he set in motion rather than claiming there would have to be a specific prohibition to stop any of his official acts.

Where specifically does the Constitution authorize the US government to prohibit the introduction of chemical compounds into one's own body? Where does the Constitution specifically authorize the federal government to regulate which crops are grown by private individuals, or what products people can manufacture and sell?

Where does the Constitution specifically authorize the government to run schools, interfere with travel, counterfeit money via the Federal Reserve, torture prisoners, or maintain "forts" in practically every nation on the globe? The answer is that it doesn't.

All those things are illegal for the US government to do- and since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, understood (at least by anyone less ignorant than the buffoons of the Supreme Court) to be illegal for any other government in America to do, as well.

But that's just no fun, and it's not as profitable, either. Which explains why the Constitution and Bill of Rights- which only applies to employees of the government by prohibiting most of their desired actions- will never be obeyed by government At least not voluntarily.

.

Panic

At this moment I am confronting my biggest phobia. I may be on my way to the hospital or something. I know I should go. And for me to feel bad enough to consider that means I feel bad. I haven't felt like eating in days- among other things. I have no money, no insurance, and I don't want welfare. I feel like I'm dying and I am scared out of my mind. I don't want to leave my 4 year old daughter fatherless, but I also don't want to die and leave her with a lot of debt from my hospital bills.

.

"Humans are flawed"... Yeah. What of it?

I saw someone who was trying to justify his "conservative libertarianism", specifically the idea that while government can't do anything else well or without harming the innocent, its "borders" are reasonable and good. His excuse for believing this was that only "conservative libertarians" recognize that people are "limited and flawed". Huh?

Now, this is a smart guy. On most things he is even beyond smart; he is wise. But here he has a giant blind spot that he seems to know is there and is trying to explain away. Yet the result is glaring inconsistency.

I don't believe in government's "borders". I do believe in property lines. I also recognize and accept that people are flawed. Including myself.

Do borders protect me from flawed people? No. Borders empower flawed people and give them more exciting ways to explore the depths of their depravity by violating others in myriad ways.

The only way I can imagine a "border" making a situation better is if the people "inside" had achieved a perfect society. Then it would make sense to defend a border to protect your society from the "outside" influences. But, then, if you need "protection" by restricting travel across property you don't own, by people who are not yours to control, your society wouldn't quite be "perfect", would it?

All people are flawed. All governments are comprised of some of the most flawed among a given population- those who think it's OK to attack and steal, as long as you do it "by the book" (or at least, while wearing the silly hat of government), and are attracted to that power. National borders are where these gangs of official criminals' territories collide. Sometimes that border is maintained by a truce- sometimes by threat. But, it's always just between the criminal gangs, not normal people like you or me. The borders are there to tell other governments that "These people are mine to 'tax' and control as I see fit. You use your subjects, I'll use mine!" Sadly these gangs brainwash some normal people into taking their side against their fellow residents. I have more in common with most "Mexicans" than I do with most "American" puppeticians and bureaucrats and enforcers/reavers. Thank goodness!

The claim that "right libertarians" accept that humans are flawed, while those of us who don't believe in "borders" don't, is ludicrous. It's a red herring of the stinkiest sort.

It just goes to illustrate, once again, that there is no such thing as "left libertarianism" or "right libertarianism". The "right" or the "left" in those labels are just an admission of the inconsistencies that are still being clung to- the areas where coercion, theft, or any other statist delusion is still accepted as valid. In those limited areas an otherwise "libertarian" individual is not being "libertarian" at all.

.

Suing The State

In cases of reaver brutality and other acts-of-government I love to see the victims sue the guilty party and win big. The only problem with that is that the guilty party doesn't actually pay for the violation- the penalty is stolen from the victim and everyone else within that imprisoned and milked geographic area.

It would be nice if there could be a change in the "law" to the effect that any government employee who is sued for violating someone pays the restitution directly from his or her own pocket. It's not going to happen since the bad guys are the ones writing and enforcing the "laws".

So, in this flawed situation, do we refuse to sue the bad guys; knowing they aren't the ones who will pay? I don't think so.

I say that the lawsuits can lead to unhappy theft victims who may eventually realize they are getting screwed over twice by the reavers and those who hold their leashes.

It is my intention to avoid allowing myself to be placed in a position where I would feel the need to sue any governmental employee, but I know that isn't always possible. But if it happens, I suppose I would still sue, and I won't blame you for doing it, either.

.

I want my descendants to live free

I want my descendants to live free

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 20, 2012)

What kind of future do I want my kids and their kids to live in?

A tightly-controlled "safe" future where they are watched out for and protected from anything that might harm them? Where human rights are thrown under the bus in the name of some nebulous "common good"? Or a liberated future where they are free to explore their full potential, as long as they don't violate the identical rights of anyone else, with no implied guarantees? Where risks are acknowledged, yet not given artificially-exaggerated weight? No contest. I want my descendants to live free.

When I close my eyes and envision their futures, I don't want to imagine them existing in a gray Soviet world, where Homeland Security (the American KGB) tracks and watches their every move for "their own good" and to protect the "Homeland".

I appreciate and even anticipate some of the technological advances that are on the horizon. However, unless some serious course changes are made, and soon, America is heading toward a strange future. One where technological wonders are in our pockets, our cars, businesses, hospitals, and homes, but we won't really be free to enjoy them. A future where everything not prohibited is mandatory. Where no action is possible which does not violate some arbitrary "law" passed to protect someone at the expense of everyone else. A strange combination of both the glorious color and the dreary grayness of science fiction at its extremes.

A "safe society" is an illusion. In fact, legislating security makes individuals much less safe in very real ways. It trains them to be helpless. It makes them believe they are incompetent to handle normal life situations by perpetuating the myth that "things are different now". It makes them think they have to depend on others- "professionals"- to educate their children, to protect themselves and their property from crime, to enforce contracts, and to know what to do in any situation. That is a lie, and it is no kind of life.

Any safety to be found will be real only if it grows out of liberty, which gives true safety a chance to germinate and thrive. Real safety based upon confidence, experience, and respect for Natural Law rather than a false "safety" based on feelings, prohibitions, and control.

Even though the safety won't be perfect in a free society- it can never be in any real-world example- a life of liberty is fulfilling and colorful. It is more meaningful. I want that world for my kids, because I want that world for myself. Thorns and all.

.

You've been robbed, but you got a receipt...

If I steal something from you, but leave you a receipt, does that make my theft not a theft? I don't think so.

So, how is it that government can get away with that?

They think that replacing your gold and silver with Federal Reserve Notes is a fair trade, but it isn't.

They think getting you to trade your liberty and giving you a receipt labelled "security" makes it OK. It doesn't.

Sure, if I agree to the trade, even if it is a stupid decision, then I get what I deserve. But I didn't.

Robbers broke in and left a receipt for all they stole and we are supposed to be satisfied. Screw that!

.

A modest proposal to prevent "bad government"

I think that if there is to be any "governing" allowed to take place, it should take place only under the watchful eyes of angry armed observers standing not more than 6 feet away. No governing should ever be permitted to take place behind metal detectors, or with armed security for the puppeticians being in the same building. The odds need to be leveled, and if one side has the power to destroy the lives of the other side, then the other side must have the same immediate power.

I think that would avoid a lot of the problems that seem to go along with puppeticians and bureaucrats. How many "laws" would end up being passed under those conditions? How many rights would be violated by government actions if that was a prerequisite for any government actions being engaged in? How often would "taxes" be increased?

Eventually it might even reduce the attraction that the sociopaths feel toward being elected to a government job.

Of course, the obvious conclusion is that there should never, ever, be any governing allowed. It isn't healthy or nice.

.

Is liberty a sphere or a spectrum?

Is the landscape of liberty a sphere or a spectrum?

A lot of people seem to operate on the assumption that it is a sphere- that you can only go so far toward liberty before you find yourself heading back toward slavery- without ever having changed direction. You can only travel so far north before you have to stand still to avoid going south. If they are right, then there is an optimal amount of liberty and anything beyond that is worse than pointless.

On the other hand if the landscape of liberty is a spectrum, there might become a point where you reach the end of the line and there is simply no more liberty to be gained by trying to reach farther, but the pursuit wouldn't be harmful other than wasting your time.

Wouldn't it be great to explore far enough into those unknown reaches that the answer becomes obvious?

.

"Better than..."

"Better than..."?

One of my ex-wives used to complain that I thought I was better than everyone else. While she was wrong about that, if she had said better than some other people, she would have been right, although I didn't want to admit it at the time. And, you know what? I still feel the same.

She thought I felt I was better than poor people who shopped at the dented can store she used to like to go to. She was right, but not for the reason she thought. I am better than people who are rude and pushy. Every time I went there, some shopper - not the same one each time- would elbow me aside to look through the cans I was looking at.

I am better than that. I won't shove people aside. When they did that it made them "less than" in my eyes.

But it doesn't stop there. I am better than people who steal. I am better than people who use coercion.

There is plenty room for others to still feel better than me. If you are still married to your first wife, or if you have a good job that pays well and gives you satisfaction, or if you are smarter, more helpful, more friendly... the list could go on indefinitely.

All people have the exact same rights. In that way no one is better than anyone else. But I'd be willing to bet that almost everyone is better than most others in some way. It would be sad if they weren't.

.