The evils of Collective punishment

Collective punishment. I hate it. It is evil.

This is part of the reason I don't buy into the whole "America is becoming degenerate; we have to do whatever we can to stop it or we deserve whatever we get." Especially if you think a deity is going to rain punishment onto all for the actions of some. Or even "all minus one".

Your "degenerate" may not be the same as mine.

I'll not mention the "degenerate" things I normally see mentioned; most are based on religious notions (either openly, or in a roundabout way) I don't ascribe to, so I'll substitute my list, instead.

I think gun "laws", highway "checkpoints", the child molesters of the TSA, "urine screenings", cop/military worship, and various other things of that sort are degenerate. I don't believe a society that had a "majority" of individuals in it who had any respect for ethical behavior would tolerate any of those things.

Yet, I don't think "America" is being/will be punished because those things are allowed to go on. If those things are really bad, as I think they are, they are their own punishment. I don't need to beat up anyone who allows them to happen by not doing what I "believe they should do to stop it". That would make me wrong.

The scariest aspect of this railing against "degeneracy" comes from "believers". Just as a teacher who punishes the entire class of students because of the behavior of one or two kids is a monster, any deity who punishes the innocent because of the actions of the guilty is evil and is not worthy of worship or respect. So if staying on "the good side" of this type of deity is why you advocate using force to make other people live by your "moral code", you expose something about your beliefs... and your deity.

Concerning those "degenerate" actions that those who worry most about such things decry... It is very sick and twisted (yes, degenerate) to punish some people for the actions of others. Especially actions they can not stop and probably don't even witness firsthand. Should I go around shooting everyone who isn't doing what "believers" think they should be doing- or to stop them from doing what those "believers " think they shouldn't do? Should I go peering into their windows at night to make sure their activities aren't "sinful" lest I be punished, too? If that's what it takes to make a deity happy, then no thanks. It's why I don't swallow the notion of "morality"; preferring ethics, instead.

Collective punishment, and anyone who engages in it or advocate it, is wrong.

.

Shameless Self-Promotion (well, maybe a little shame...)

If you have been thinking of buying something from me, here are some things I am offering.

You can check out my eBay items. I have some books, some "Zombie Apocalypse" items, some knick-knacks, some obsolete stuff, and some Chester Arthur (Denver mint) dollar coins. (The links just go to a representative item, not all I have for sale.)

I have more Chester Arthur ("D") dollars if you'd rather not go through eBay, but I need some money in my Paypal account ASAP, so I'd still probably prefer you pay that way. If you refuse to do business with Paypal, then I'll consider other arrangements, of course.

I also have my books for sale.

And Time's Up flags and T-shirts.

Links to just about all of it can be found at Dull 'Hawk's Shop.

And, you are always welcome to donate, although I would prefer to trade value for value.

Thanks.

.

Well, isn't that... "special"?

A common theme I see in movies and TV is when someone who has "special abilities" feels guilty about that advantage (or is reviled for it) and is celebrated for not using them.

Usually it is some imaginary kind of "special ability", like magic or psychic powers, rather than reality-based stuff. Still... "Don't use magic"? If you've got it, use it!

Why not use all of your abilities and resources? Because not everyone is identical? Because it would be "cheating"? Forget that!

If you can, do.

Just don't initiate force or steal.

.

"You hit the nail on the head!"

Every so often I write a column that strikes a chord with one faction or another. I'll get emails and people will stop me on the street to tell me, with enthusiasm, that they agree.

That's always nice. It can also be disappointing.

What is funny to me is that all my writings strive to exemplify the same principles of liberty, but people only respond when that liberty just happens to fit their own opinion. And usually that's when I am scolding someone for using their liberty in a way that offends a lot of people.

In this area, that means when "conservatives" just happen to be on the side that supports liberty, or when they oppose an abuse of liberty I have pointed out, my opinion is popular locally. Until the next time when the conservatives find themselves on the wrong side of the liberty fence. Suddenly I become invisible again.

You really can't cherry-pick liberty. You can't excuse the other guy's rights being violated and then genuinely be shocked when someone violates some of your rights in the same way. Not only is "what's good for the goose" "good for the gander", but the way you treat the goose gives the goose ideas about how to treat you.

On the other hand, I absolutely LOVE it when someone who really, truly "gets it" comes and expresses their appreciation for my newspaper columns or blog. This is happening more and more often these days.

.

Liberty Lines May 31, 2012

(Published in the State Line Tribune- Farwell, Texas/ Texico, New Mexico. I was told this wouldn't be published this week, but next, so that is why the date is odd in the address bar.)

You're not going to find solutions or answers in government. You might as well be looking for diamonds in your box of breakfast cereal. That doesn't mean, however, that solutions won't be promised by those whose paychecks depend on fooling you into supporting them.

It's time for a reality check. Government can't stimulate the economy. Government can't create jobs. You can- unless government gets in your way.

Therefore, the best way to fix America is to find ways around the obstacles that government, at all levels, places in your way.

Stop waiting for some politician to fix it, or propose a plan to fix it. His solution, if it involves government action and the spending of "tax" money, will not have the effect you desire. In fact, it's almost guaranteed that his "solution" will make things worse, just as FDR's "New Deal" dragged the Great Depression out for seven years longer than doing "nothing" would have done.

There had been earlier economic panics which didn't get fixed by government, so they ended before they took root and became "depressions". They all seemed pretty bad until the government intervention of the 1930s changed the game and set a new standard for "depression". Government action can turn a panic, which usually lasted eighteen months at most, into a depression that can drag on for decades. Compounded government action can then make that depression "great" enough to become legendary.

So stop asking politicians to "do something". They are only too eager to pander to that request. Instead, demand that they butt out.

Things aren't hopeless, though. You're not "on your own", since most individuals are on your side.* But you can't rely on government to solve things that it is fundamentally incapable of solving. Government's solution to a bad economy is to create trillions more counterfeit "dollars" and spend them or spread them around. That's like solving a wildfire by dumping gasoline on it. Government solutions only make things worse, every time they are tried. Don't count on that particular law of nature to change on this planet.

(* For some reason, this is where the paper cut off my column. I feel they neutered it by leaving off the rest.)

.

Government apologists: Short memories?

It amazes me that so few people seem to realize that all the things government "provides" now, were not always "provided" by government.

For example, someone responded to a comment I made by saying:

Who would coordinate the building of roads, making sure that water and food is safe, criminals are brought to justice, all children have a chance to be educated, forest fires are put out, national parks are preserved for the use of everybody, etc.?

Seriously? Why would government have to have anything to do with any of those things? It's like he tried to make sure every cliche was included in that one sentence. Which makes me wonder if he didn't already know the answers; just wanted to see how I would respond.

And here is how I responded:

Roads weren't always built by the government- and still aren't always built by governments now. In fact there is a recent case out of Hawaii where the local residents rebuilt a road that had been destroyed after government kept dragging its feet.

For those who complain that they don't want to have to pay a toll to drive- I hate to tell them but they already do. And that toll comes with no guarantees about the quality of service. The private sector- the voluntary sector- can provide roads cheaper, better, and safer. Without demanding you give up your liberty in exchange for driving on them.

Underwriter's Laboratories is a good example of a private quality assurance certification process. One that is paid for by its customers, and not forcibly financed by those who have no desire to finance it. Most private standards for safety are much higher than government standards even now. If your hamburger is only up to government standards, you had better consider eating something else.

A company won't last long (without government protection) if it poisons its customers.

I have lived places several times where I had my water tested by local labs to make sure it was safe. Why believe that "only government" can do it, that government does it "best", or that government would do it cheaper?

The justice system only accidentally provides justice. And not even that very often. There is no "justice" in locking up people who have been caught smoking marijuana. Or doing anything else that doesn't have an individual victim that you can point to. Even murder is not "fixed" by the courts or prisons. Real justice means you return a victim to the condition they were in before their life, liberty, or property were damaged. Where justice falls short, restitution is required to balance out the equation. Prison does none of this.

The really sad delusion is that a "crime" harms The State. Sorry, but The State is never a victim.

Before government took over education, America was an incredibly literate nation. Foreign visitors remarked on that fact. It has taken about a century and a half of government "schooling" to destroy much of that literacy. Now graduates barely read. They are ignorant enough of history that they can fall for the lie that the Supreme Court is the last word on "Constitutionality" and that having "dollars" backed by nothing but a government promise (and printed/created by the trillions) is good for the economy. Oh, and that "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean what it says. Education is MUCH too important to allow government within a light-year of it.

Fire fighting- whether of a town or of a forest- is in the best interests of everyone around. In a free society it could be accomplished through something like "fire insurance", but where if your property is damaged by fire anyway, the fire company is liable for the damage. Wildfires would be fought by any local fire companies that would prefer to nip it in the bud rather than wait until their customers were at risk- and their profits were at risk, too. I suspect that there would be fire crews for hire that could be brought in at a moments notice by the "insurance company. There will always be adrenaline junkies looking to do the heroic-type jobs. For pay. Pay that is collected voluntarily without the threat of "fines" or prison.

Property that is privately owned is cared for better than property that has no individual person responsible. "The Tragedy of the Commons" is real, and can be seen locally wherever "communal" property exists. If I owned a former national park, it would be in my best interests to keep it nice and clean. Both for my own enjoyment, and so that I could attract paying visitors. Government is the worst polluter the world has ever seen- how can such a thing "protect" or "preserve" anything natural? Whenever I go camping I spend a lot of leisure time picking up trash- much of it very old and weathered- that no one has seen fit to pick up as "part of their job". If I owned the place I would hire employees who would do their job or get fired. (Assuming the absence of government which prevents this proper response, anyway.)

Anything you can point to that government does can be done voluntarily instead. Everything good, anyway. And, if something is really a good thing, someone will find a way to provide it. For a profit. If you think that will cost more than it does now, consider that in a free society you will only be paying for those things you actually want, need, or use. Those things that aren't wanted, needed, or used will go away.

And, remember, the above ideas aren't necessarily the way it "will" be done; just possible ways it could be done. People will probably find solutions for some things that could have never been discovered until liberty was respected again.

.

Seeing your reflection in others

"You can't trust 'them'."

"You can't be nice to 'them'."

"You can't expect 'them' to act like you and me."

"'They' will take your kindness as an opportunity to kill you."

"Life isn't worth as much to 'those people'."

"Fight them over there or you'll have to fight them over here."

-

How many times have you heard justifications like this. It's why it is OK to invade their homes and kill them as "insurgents" or "terrorists" when they resist your "help".

To some people, anyway.

Well, people often treat you as you are treating them. Even if all the above excuses are correct, it doesn't prevent you from being civilized, yet prepared to defend yourself without notice. And it doesn't justify you behaving as you claim 'they' behave.

.

Government more like unruly dog

Government more like unruly dog

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 27, 2012. So, is the more crude translation "Government's a b*tch"?)

George Washington is quoted as saying “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Unfortunately, in spite of this awareness, he chose to be a part of the problem. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

His assessment still holds up, although I think government is more like a dog.

A big, poorly trained dog that forever grows larger and meaner. The bigger it gets, the more of your stuff it breaks and the more it consumes. It slobbers all over everything, has terrible gas, and is possessive of your property.

As a puppy he was manageable. He was given some rules and training, and seemed agreeable for a while. As he matured it was believed he made your home safe because he was so powerful.

Unfortunately, the people who gave him to you lied about him. They said he would only grow so large, then stop, and that he would obey the rules that were set out for him. He didn't stop growing, and the larger he gets the more he ignores the rules, which were never really enforced anyway. Now when you try to correct him, he growls- and sometimes bites. He takes what he wants from your plate and if you try to scold him, he goes berserk. He roams wherever he wants with impunity, and may well be rabid. This dog has become your greatest danger.

You know he has been attacking the neighbors, but some of your family members stick up for him no matter what he does. Those whom he has threatened or wounded are getting fed up. Some would like to see him put down. The neighbors blame you for the dog's behavior, though you really do try to be a responsible master. You are only one person and no one else in your household sees any problem with the dog. They still believe that the bigger and meaner he gets, the safer your house will be.

A common distillation of libertarianism is "maximum liberty- minimum government". Maximum liberty is having the freedom to do everything you can do without violating any other person's rights. Minimum government is arguable. Since this "dog" seems completely incapable of doing the only things that his few libertarian defenders think he should do- protect the innocent by protecting property rights and ensuring justice- my "minimum government" is self government, also known as "self responsibility", and involves no third party. How much beyond that do you want?

.

Lots of potential Libertopias

Here's some more sciencey speculation for you.

I am always seeing estimates of the percentage of stars which might have a planetary system surrounding them. (Current estimates range from 20% to 50%) I think they are all wrong.

I suspect it will eventually be realized that star formation includes planet formation just as surely as dropping a big rock into sloppy mud creates a surrounding pattern of splatter. Planets may be considered almost a part of a star. Beyond the chromosphere and the corona is the "planetsphere".

So, I strongly suspect the percentage of stars with a planetary system is 100%- with the possible exception of some stars which went through some cataclysmic event that stripped them away from their planets. (What percentage of humans have a head?)

Now, how many of those stars have a planet (or more) where life develops, and how likely is it for sapience to arise in those biospheres? The answers may turn out to be just as obvious.

.

Ouch! That hurt!

I just turned down an offer of $100 to place a link in my blog.

I said I would be glad to do it as long as I could disclose that I was paid for the link. I was told that no one else insists on doing that, and that it would be a deal-breaker.

So, I wrote back and said "sorry, but thanks for the offer".

I have to admit, for the tiniest moment, a hesitation before I hit "send" on that reply. Dang my ethics!

.

Zippo- an outlaw company (good for them!)

About a week ago, I had an experience that showed me, again, that even the most innocuous of government monopolies is still a bad thing.

Out wandering the wastelands on the edge of town with my daughter I found an old Zippo lighter. Being obsessed with fire starting methods/tools, I kept it. The cap was missing and the "wheel" was rusted in place, but I know Zippo repairs or replaces their lighters for free, "forever".

When I got home I went online and found the address for the Zippo Repair Clinic, packed up the old lighter, and headed off to the local post office.

The clerk took the package and asked the standard "anything hazardous, fragile, or flammable?" question, to which I replied "no".

She held it carefully, looked at it suspiciously, and said "It says 'Zippo', what's in here?"

I said it is a broken lighter.

She looked shocked and said "You can't mail lighters!"

I said that I followed the packaging instructions on the Zippo site (and why would they even have a mailing address at all if you couldn't mail anything to them?), and I had mailed lighter to them before.

"They might still have residue!"

"No, this one was very, very dry. I've mailed them before."

"You just didn't get caught that time" (paraphrased- my attention was slipping)

She pulled out a full-color, government brochure detailing all the things the government has arbitrarily declared to be "dangerous" to mail (which UPS and FedEx can still mail, I suppose).

By this time I wasn't really listening anymore, but was trying to figure out how I was getting this to UPS or FedEx. But she kept lecturing for a bit anyway.

So, I left the post office with my package, and as the "proud" owner of a full color, government brochure (slightly used)... had an idea, and went a few blocks, across the state line, and mailed my package without incident from New Mexico.

Zippo emailed me to confirm receipt of the lighter, so I emailed them back to inform them that according to this officious postal clerk, mailing their lighters, under any circumstances, is a serious crime.

I guess it's a good thing I'm already an outlaw.

.

Is that the feeling of my head swelling just a bit?

One of the nicest things I have ever seen said about anything I have ever written showed up a while back on another blog, in the comments.

It was in response to this comment I had made a bit earlier:

The way I see it, if something offends you but does not "break your leg or pick your pocket" (not my words, look it up), speak out. Ridicule it. Say loudly why it offends you. March alongside quoting the Bible (or book of your choice) calling them whatever name you can think of. Shun them, totally and completely and try to get others to do so, also. But the second you use force- in person or by proxy- against someone who hasn't used force against you or stolen from you, you have become a bad guy too.

Anyway, "Jim Klein" wrote:

For the record, I completely concur with what Kent wrote...word for word, idea for idea. In fact, it's so good that it easily does as well as any words of wisdom that were written 240 years ago.

What's liberty in the American tradition? What defines a rational society? There it is.

Wow. Thanks!

.

"Based on actual events"

Here's a situation for exercising your thinking skills. This in't about me, and I have my own thoughts on how to deal with the situation, which I'll keep to myself in order to get uncontaminated input.

I suspect this is a case of two people with the same personality "quirks" running head-on into one another. Like two anger-crazed rams or something.

In any case, Person A is a low-level manager at a "major retail chain" who is having trouble with Person B who is directly above her. I'll assume for the moment that Person A is giving an accurate account of events.

Person A says Person B is sabotaging her at work. Person B spreads rumors among the people in Person A's department- those she is supposed to manage- and acts rudely to "A" in front of them. "B" has gone back to Person A's department after "A" has left for the day, and un-done everything "A" did that day, and then pointed out to higher management that the department's work is unfinished. She made threatening gestures at Person A one time, in front of another manager, and nothing was done.

It has gotten to the point that "A" acts just as nasty to "B" as "B" acted to her from the beginning. "A" is not a particularly pleasant individual to begin with.

Person A is about ready to quit her job, even without anything else lined up. Person A has gone to every other manager who is above "B" without any results whatsoever, other than a couple of times having them run directly to "B" to report what was said. Person A has even gone to regional management with about the same results. She was told "respect is a two-way street".

What would you do in such a situation?

.

Earned or wasted on the undeserving?

What if someone honestly believed it was good to do "---", but instead "---" was a horrible thing to do? Would you "honor" them anyway, based upon their erroneous belief that what they were doing was a good thing?

Do their beliefs make a difference? Their intentions? Or do results and the reality matter?

Do you honor people who believe they are doing the right thing when they are really not doing the right thing at all?

I just can't. And it creates a divide between me and some others that I'd rather not be at odds with. So, I generally just keep my mouth shut as long as no one beats me over the head with it.

.

"Eliminate private property"?

I frequently see socialists say something to the effect, in the course of their "debates", of: "...eliminate private property and everything will be great".

You can't. That would be like me saying that everything could be perfect if we could just eliminate theft and aggression.

Private property is a feature of life. You can't eliminate it just because you want to. All you can do is eliminate "legal" recognition of private property- which all governments do to a great degree (generally in violation of their charters). But private property still exists in spite of that.

Just like the right to own and to carry, whatever kind of weapon you want, wherever you go, in any manner you see fit, openly or concealed, without asking anyone's permission, ever, is a fundamental feature of being human, regardless of "laws" that governments may write and enforce to the contrary. The right still exists; it is just being violated.

So it is with private property.

.

No justice in Florida teen’s slaying

No justice in Florida teen’s slaying

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

One recent "big national news" story where I seem to differ with a lot of libertarians is the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting.

I have seen the prevailing voices shift support behind whichever of the two the latest reports seem to vindicate. I continue to support both, and neither. Which is to say I support truth and liberty, wherever that may lead.

None of us were there, and even if there are any witnesses who are brought forward to testify, they will all have an agenda and be trying to push a certain perspective. It's human nature and inevitable. All any of us will ever know for sure is that two people encountered one another, and now one of them is dead.

I believe- and I admit it is nothing more than a belief- that this is a case of two troublemakers out looking for trouble and succeeding in finding it when they encountered one another. Both seem to have a history that points in that direction. I don't believe I would have been friends with either man, since both seem to have been fans of intimidation and coercion and cultural divisiveness. Of course, in both cases, all any of us knows about the individual involved has been filtered through others who want us to see the events from a particular perspective, and any truth is incidental.

Regardless of what had happened in the past, or even earlier that fateful hour, at the instant the trigger was pulled one of the two was innocent- not deserving to be harmed at that particular moment. You and I will never know which one of them was the innocent party. A trial won't alter that.

If Trayvon Martin was innocent there can never be any justice for him. Certainly not through the courts. If George Zimmerman was innocent, his prosecution is the opposite of justice and is heaping injury on top of injury. In either case making a criminal case out of this, and, in case of a conviction, allowing the prison system to swallow yet another person, isn't helping anyone other than those who profit from the excessive, abusive use of the justice system for the benefit of the imprisonment industry, and those who profit- economically or politically- from driving a wedge through society.

As in so many other cases, the best thing to do is to take Zimmerman at his word that he was being attacked and acted in self defense, but watch him carefully for any hint of aggression or "enforcer-type" behavior from this moment forward.

.

Condescension in responses

Yes, I can be condescending. A commenter has called my attention to it once again.

This happens when I get frustrated. When a person keeps saying the same thing over and over (and over) again; grasping for any justification for The State. It becomes hard to take that person seriously, since they are not taking the pro-liberty evidence seriously.

At least I don't start calling people nasty names- not worse than "statist", anyway. But if that's their position, that ruling other people is a legitimate human activity, should they be insulted by the acknowledgement that this is what they believe? I don't know. I am not insulted in the least when called an anarchist, even when the person is trying to insult me. I guess that's just me.

I just finished reading the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, and he mentions a similar problem he had that was pointed out to him by a friend. He tells how he endeavored to change his behavior. I may not be as good a man as Mr. Franklin, so I may fail... but I will try to do better.

I'm not saying there is no place for condescension. Or profanity. Or even calling an idiot an idiot. What I am saying is that I try to not be the "place" for that.

However, there are some notions that have had a free ride for way too long. Some opinions are just not valid. The myth of "needing" a State is one of them. Too many people have coddled the people expressing this false delusion for far too long, and pretended that the idea isn't simply outright insane. I think it's long past time to call a spade a spade.

Thoughts?

_

Addendum: Then what makes me even more irritated in this particular case is that the commenter huffs off after claiming to find misogyny in the comments. Notice that no one mentioned gender at all. Until she brought it up, that is. It makes me think that she believes that socialism is a "feminine value" or something. Ugh!



.

Annular eclipse photos- May 20, 2012

All photos, except the one of the reflection in the house window, taken by my mother. In order, I think.

Free market supporter?

If you are a supporter of the War on (some) Drugs, you are an enemy of the free market.

.

Eureka! Eclipse shows stop signs DO have a use

After long, fruitless years of studying, I have finally done it: I have found a legitimate use for stop signs!

They are good screens for projecting annular solar eclipses on.

I was happy to be along the path of this evening's eclipse and by using a mirror I was able to watch the reflection of the whole thing (until the sun set). Awesome!

I also used a pinhole and reflections in car windows and another group of eclipse watchers let me look through their welding helmet as well. And I did sneak some peeks as the sun set and was dimmed by haze.

Here's a regular picture of the annular eclipse taken by my mom during the maximum.

.