Heart and Brain

Long ago I heard something to the effect that if you were young and conservative it meant you didn't have a heart, but if you were mature and liberal it meant you didn't have a brain.

I'd say that was half right, it just ignored the other half of the truth. To have a heart AND a brain means you are libertarian.

.

No loopholes in libertarianism

No loopholes in libertarianism

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 10, 2012)

It's usually nice when you run across something that confirms what you already thought to be true. However, "nice" doesn't really get you anywhere if you care about truth. The best way to find out whether or not something is true is to try as hard as you can to disprove it. Therefore I keep trying to disprove libertarianism to myself.

I know that's not how people normally operate (Me? Normal?), but unless you search for flaws in what you believe to be true, you never get any closer to the real truth. So I am continually looking for loopholes. Perhaps, deep down I suspect, or fear, that those who claim libertarianism can't work in the real world may be right. Maybe this is because I am exposed, on a daily basis, to so many who try to justify their opposition. They seem to believe the only thing keeping everyone (other than themselves, of course) from becoming mass-murdering thieves is the threat of governmental punishment.

So I keep searching. After all, I'd rather BE right than BELIEVE I'm right.

I try to find the instance where it really is necessary or ethical to be the first to throw a punch; to "initiate force" in the parlance of libertarians. I look for those cases where taking property from its rightful owners for "the common good" really is the right thing to do. I look for examples where a problem was honestly solved by using the coercive force of The State.

So far, despite my best efforts, I have consistently come up empty.

Sure, there have been times I thought I had found the crack in the wall. Usually it came as a result of someone passionately trying to justify their opposition to something I had written. Each time, for a moment, I thought to myself that perhaps this was "it"; the exception to the rule. Every single time it turned out I wasn't thinking the problem- or the consequences of the "solution"- through sufficiently. I wasn't working from principles, but giving in to fuzzy thinking or emotionalism, or ignoring human nature and reality.

The people who hate the principles of liberty the most, and forcefully inform me of their opinion, are the ones who offer me the best tools to try to find the flaws I seek in libertarianism. For that I appreciate them. I wonder how many of them take the equal opportunity I offer for searching out the flaws in statism.

.

September 11: Consequences Day

I've been calling September 11th "Blowback Day" for years. Thinking about it today I decided that needs to change. Blowback is only one aspect of the date; just one of the consequences.

Henceforth this date, September 11th, shall be called "Consequences Day".

The events of September 11, 2001 (regardless of what actually happened or who was actually behind it) were the consequences of past actions coming home to roost.

It was the consequence of mandating inadequately armed airline passengers.

It was the consequence of allowing a federal government to run rampant- killing, blockading, embargoing, occupying, manipulating, spying, threatening, bullying, robbing, and many other evil actions- all over the globe.

It was the consequence of permitting stupid and evil people to demonize defensive violence and make no distinction between types of violence.

It was the consequence of teaching people to go along quietly with those who mean to do them harm.

It was the consequence of the past couple of centuries of statism.

It was the consequence of choosing false "security" over liberty.

It was the consequence of trusting government.

It seems few people have learned anything from the tragic consequences of this date in history.

.

Friends don't let friends rule

OK, maybe they "let" them; they just don't support them.

Just because I might like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson doesn't mean I want either of them to rule me or my neighbors. I'll bet I'd enjoy sitting down to talk with either of these men. Whether they would enjoy talking to me is another matter.

The fact that I thoroughly dislike Obamney, in whichever incarnation, only adds to the fact that it can never rule me. I'll bet I would have a hard time remaining civil during a chat with Obamney.

I don't need a president, and neither do you. Let those who do believe they need one play the game, and let's ignore the results of their stupidity.

Oh, and "happy" Blowback Day.

.

"Render ... unto Caesar..."

Here's a familiar passage (choose your translation):

"Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?

Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

This little exchange has been the genesis (pun intended) of a lot of Christian statism. For no good reason.

I would say that all this means is "don't steal". Render unto "Caesar"... Let's get rid of the name Caesar. Perhaps then we can see it more clearly. Render unto "Bob" that which belongs to Bob. Don't claim Bob's stuff as your own, and if you are in possession of Bob's stuff, give it back to him. I don't think it means you have to give Bob anything of yours that he did not earn in a completely voluntary fashion.

Does your money belong to Caesar- or in current terms, The State- just because The State says it does? Ridiculous! Only those things which are the rightful property of The State need to be handed over to The State.

What does The State rightfully own? You? Your life? The fruits of your labor? NO! The State, every State, possesses nothing it did not steal or "buy" with stolen (including counterfeited) money.

Render unto Caesar, or Bob, whatever you want to, including whatever you feel you must to avoid being murdered by him, but don't ever feel guilty for keeping what is yours. And never again use this passage as justification for "taxation" or a State.

.

The danger of having a State

A free society, one without a centralized government, doesn't need to worry too much about being invaded and conquered. This is one of the "yeah, but what if"s that people present in opposition to true liberty. They think that without Washington DC, and it's armed goons, keeping out the invaders, Chinese troops (or whoever the speaker personally fears) will overrun America and annex us.

Then there's reality.

Consider this recent offering from Fred Reed concerning why it is so hard for empires to defeat one particular region:

"In Afghanistan there are no targets of high value to destroy, no clear lines of supply to be cut, no cities whose capture means you win, and no concentrations of enemy to be easily killed."

And this is in a region where there is little liberty. Add real liberty to that equation and the odds are stacked even more in favor of the home team. Without a city to capture and win, you have to defeat each and every individual. It won't happen.

The State endangers me and it endangers you. Stop pretending otherwise.

.

The 2012 Obamney election pageant

I wish I had the whole clip where they debate the "titanium tax" with the lines:

"I say your 3 cent titanium tax goes too far"

"And, I say YOUR 3 cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough"


.

Liberty Lines, September 6, 2012

(Published in the Farwell, Texas/Texico, New Mexico, State Line Tribune)

Everyone creates something. Shoemakers create shoes. Blacksmiths create ironworks. Bakers create bread. And, apparently, city councils create criminals.

The slew of new ordinances proposed recently will do nothing but make more people into lawbreakers. It is inevitable. Then the resultant "crime spree" will be pointed to as justification for even more controls and stiffer enforcement.

Aren't all the real bad things (and a lot more) already illegal? Instead of creating new laws for people to break, deal with the true offenses- theft, destruction of property, and aggression; the "mala in se" (bad in and of themselves) acts. No "mala prohibita" ("bad" just because we say so) offenses need to be dreamed up or enforced, as America- including Farwell- is already being crushed under an avalanche of them.

Just because the state of Texas or some international code (part of Agenda 21- look it up) says you have to impose certain rules on those of us in Farwell, that is no reason to comply. There is an honorable tradition known as "nullification" wherein a bad legal example is not emulated. It only takes a little courage.

There is one way I could back new rules: for each new liberty-infringing rule passed, twenty currently-enforced ordinances must be abolished. At least until a level of maturity is reached where people are ashamed to obsess over what the neighbors might be doing.

Liberty is becoming a rare commodity. Let's stop outlawing it. Stop violating the property rights and the individual liberties of those who live around you. It's just the right thing to do.

.

The hypocrisy of the statist

One thing that constantly crops up as a source of mild amusement- and occasional frustration- is that the same people who have a problem with my lack of respect for The State (and other governments) feel they can ignore certain "laws" without being hypocritical.

I tend to obey most "laws" that aren't a matter of life and death, especially when the risk of being caught is high and the consequences are steep. Yet, some of the people I am referring to ignore "laws" very openly and still look down on me for the "laws" I express scorn for. And they would be shocked! if they faced consequences for getting caught breaking those "laws".

One person, upon discovering that the local "city" council had just adopted a bunch of new ordinances- some of which would negatively affect his life- was at least honest enough to admit "Now MY ox is being gored."

It must be painful to be a statist.

.

Gun laws won’t prevent deaths

Gun laws won’t prevent deaths

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 3, 2012. The headline is similar to last week's (part 1?), but it's a totally different column. I promise!)

Wouldn't stronger laws or more strict enforcement stop people from killing the innocent with guns? For the life of me I can't figure out why it's supposedly worse to be murdered with a gun than with a knife, a brick, or a car, but let's skip that part.

The truth of the matter is that guns are a very old technology. That cat is out of the bag and it will not be stuffed back in. The only way to get rid of guns at this point is to eliminate every gunsmith and everyone who knows metallurgy, chemistry, physics, and mechanics; burn every book and ban any website on those subjects, as well as any which gives even a hint as to how a gun operates. Anyone with a bit of knowledge can figure out how to make a gun. You don't even need gunpowder nowadays. As long as a gun can equalize people, they will be built, carried, and used.

Strengthen the penalties? Increase the penalties for getting caught with a gun and you will remove any remaining reluctance to carrying a fully-automatic firearm. After all, if the penalty is comparable, why not go with the supposedly better tool?

All coercive gimmicks ignore the simple fact that the real solution is for more guns to be in the hands of decent people. It's the only thing that will ever work. Nothing will ever disarm people who want to harm the innocent. Nothing. It doesn't matter if you just really hate guns and want them to go away. You can whine about it; you can call gun owners nasty names, you can speculate on how to achieve Utopia. None of that will change reality. To hold back the bad guys you need to be able to stop them, and they need to know that if they try to harm people it is highly likely they will encounter someone like you who is willing and able to put an end to their rampage, no matter when or where they strike.

We are not talking about "chaos, with bullets flying everywhere" since the average gun owner won't pull the trigger until he knows his target and what's beyond it. We are talking about psychological deterrent and the ability to interfere with an active shooter's plans. Even with body armor, getting shot is painfully distracting and that distraction can save lives. There will still be tragedies. Nothing can prevent them all. Don't sacrifice your liberty for false hope, manufactured fear, and misplaced empathy.

.

Shared traits

A badger is not a chair. Both have four legs; both are made of matter- in the case of a wooden chair, mostly carbon like the badger- both cast shadows when in the light; both are affected by gravitational fields, and... well they have a whole host of traits in common. But a badger is still not a chair.

In the same way I am not a conservative or a liberal. I share some traits with both because, frankly, neither of them could be wrong on everything all the time. Where they pick the side of individual liberty- an accidental consequence of individual liberty fitting into one small aspect of their otherwise statist agenda- I will be on the same side. But where their statist agenda stomps on individual liberty they are on the wrong side and I don't side with them.

The amusing consequence is that I end up on mailing lists of statist groups for conservatives (probably due to my pro-self defense stance) and for liberals (probably due to my opposition to prohibition) where they try to sell me their toxic sewage along with the few diamonds they carry. Assuming that because I agree with them on the pro-liberty stuff, I will agree with them on their anti-liberty agenda, I get called a "empty-headed liberal" or a "knuckle-dragging conservative" by those who get offended by my refusal to give up liberty and buy into their fear-mongering.

They are too blind to see that a badger is not a chair, and too narrow minded to understand that a libertarian is not a statist.

.

"Social justice"

In the recent past I have seen more and more mentions of "social justice" from people calling themselves "libertarians". I have looked into it a bit in the past, but decided it was time to really give it an examination. After doing so I discovered something important: Ain't no such critter as "social justice". Sorry.

Of course, it looks good at first glance:

"Social justice" (From Wikipedia*) "... justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being."

That part sounds pretty good, other than the delusional belief that there are "classes" of people. And I might want to find out just how they define this "society" thing- I have seen some doozies there, too.

Justice, real justice, involves returning a person who has been stolen from or attacked to their pre-violation condition- or as close as possible. I see no evidence of anyone being stolen from or attacked here. Unless it is by the rulers and their BS rules (yet just who is supposed to be enforcing this "social justice" other than those rulers?)

Of course, there is no such thing as "equality" other than the equality of the rights each individual is born with. Those rights are identical in each and every individual human being.

And, what's this "solidarity" they speak of? I can't have "solidarity" with someone who is attacking innocent people or stealing from others. Or advocating that someone else do either of those evil things on their behalf. Now, someone who is being robbed or attacked, I can have "solidarity" with- and try to come to their aid- but not by harming those who weren't doing the attacking or robbing. That's just insane!

I've also never met an advocate of "social justice" who actually "understands and values human rights". I have met and read some who make up all sorts of "positive rights" [sic] that violate the right to not be a slave to any other person. And, there is no "dignity" in living that way- not for the victim of the slavery, nor for those feeding on it.

So, perhaps the pretty words are rather empty. Let's examine a bit farther...

"Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution."

So, advocating and carrying out blatant theft- as long as you steal a larger percentage from those who have more to steal- will somehow fulfill all the wishes in that first quoted part? I don't think so. In fact it completely violates every single thing they claim "social justice" to embrace. Collectivism is so self-contradictory!

The evil continues:

"These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system."

I'm sorry, gentle thieves, but where there is no "equality of opportunity" the best way to fix that problem is by eliminating "legal" red tape, cronyism, and regulation (all the crap that plops out of The State's orifice); not by giving the ones who create the problem more power to steal more.

And, "equality of outcome"? You've GOT to be kidding! The only way to achieve this is by killing everyone. Some risks pay off; some don't. Some people are smarter than others, luckier than others, or just have better skills or timing. That's reality whether you like it or not. It might not be "fair" according to your childish daydreams, but as Scott Adams says, fairness is "a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments".

Just because the methods some would employ to achieve a stated goal are disgusting doesn't automatically invalidate the goal itself... but in this case even the goal doesn't hold up to scrutiny or rational evaluation. Nope, I'm done with the idiotic religion of "social justice". Pursue it if you want, but it is not a libertarian ideal and if you try to use theft or coercion to impose it, I will fight you.

-

*Yes, I am aware of the limitations of relying too heavily on Wikipedia, so I also looked at other sources such as this one, this one, and this one- but at the core, they all advocated the same thing: "equality" through theft.

.

My Advice to Republicans

While you Republicans are wrong on half of the things you yap about, just like Democrats are, and I have gotten over the need to vote (although I still have empathy with the voters), I will offer you some advice. Take it or leave it.

You screwed yourselves badly by nominating Obamney 2.0. And now you are falling over your own feet trying to justify what you did, and trying to convince each other how great he is and how only he can save America from Obamney 1.0. Even "conservatives", who should despise the liberal extremist Republican candidate, are doing this.

You don't have to convince each other. You have already bought in. The only people who "like" your candidate are those voters who either despise the other candidate so much that they'd vote for a smelly gym sock soaked in goat urine if it were running against him, or those who will stick by anything as long as the GOP nominated it. You've got that vote locked up easily. But that's not enough to give you a win.

You've got to convince those people who basically see things as I do, but haven't yet walked away from the rigged game- those who still hold out hope that liberty can be increased by a vote. You can't win the election without them.

And most of those people are not stupid enough to vote for your chosen candidate. We see that he is just a mirror reflection of the other candidate- a thuggish goon who supports and advocates all the same crap the other thuggish goon advocates and supports.

You are committing suicide, Republican Party. I won't try to stop you- I only hope the Democrats do the same. But they won't unless something changes because they don't try to be exactly like you. That's purely a Republican trait.

So, if you actually want to become relevant, you will have to nominate people who scare you just a little. Candidates who are different. Candidates who will arouse deep hatred in liberals while they attract those who want something different from the bland offerings you keep serving up. In other words, you will have to become a little more libertarian.

Personally, I hope you don't. Liberty will suffer until the statists all make themselves so ridiculous to normal people that the spell is broken and the "same old thing" stops getting recycled. You're well on your way.

.

I want to be PERFECT...

...and it really irritates me when my human flaws- or reality- or the situation- prevent it.

Take the government school mess that has been tearing me up inside recently.

I so badly want my daughter out of that prison. But she wants to be there- for now, at least. And everyone who is in her life, other than me, wants her to be there too. So I will have to just accept the situation for now and deal with it the best I can, considering the circumstances.

Yes, it bothers me.

I guess this way I won't complain (out loud) about property "taxes" that I pay, since I don't want handouts, but expect to pay for what I use. Even if I'd prefer a voluntary alternative that is subject to market forces. (And I realize I am not getting a good return on my money, and am being delivered a load of unwanted sewage along with what I might willingly accept.)

I still don't want my childless neighbors (or those whose crotch-fruit don't attend government schools due to age or some other reason) to be robbed for my "benefit". But I'll try to shut up about this for the time being. And plan my subversion quietly.

.

Abolish slavery- abolish government schools

I don't understand why so many people are so anxious to defend government schools that they will attack anyone who questions the "system". This psychotic level of defensiveness is scary.

Is it because they don't want to be thought of as abusing their children if they send them to these drone factories?

Is it because they don't want to face the harm the government schools may have done to them?

Is it because "it's always been done this way"? Because it hasn't, you know.

Government schools are funded through theft. You can't teach anyone to be a decent person with that kind of example. Government schools are the reproductive organ of The State. Sure, some people do well in them. Humans are incredibly adaptive. Sure, you can learn things in government schools.

But "Schooling" is NOT the same as education. They are completely unrelated, except that schooling teaches people to obey "authority" figures- thank goodness many never really learn that lesson.

.

Bloomberg & Kelly: Laughingstocks

New York City's mayor Bloomie and New York's Reaver Queen, DeathRay Kelly, are now the laughingstock of America. It's about time.

These "only cops should have guns" idiots are still chanting their mantra even after their ridiculous premise was utterly destroyed when the NYC's badged reavers shot 9 innocent bystanders while killing a murderer near the Empire State Building. "Untrained" armed good guys couldn't have done worse, and have historically done a lot better.

I suppose the only way things could have been worse in the Aurora theater massacre is if some armed cops had been the only other armed people at the movie that night. Yet, this is exactly what Bloomie and DeathRay are still pushing for. Because only reavers have the "right training" to handle guns safely. Yeah, right.

.

Gun laws won't stop killers

Gun laws won't stop killers

(My Clovis News Journal/Portales News-Tribune column for July 27, 2012. Also, read "part 2".)

Once again, the inevitable results of "gun control" have claimed more innocent lives. And, once again, those whom the majority of the media fawn over have begun their ritual blood dance; blaming everything and everyone but the shooter for the murders.

Predictably they are calling for more violations of the fundamental right to own and to carry any type of weapon you see fit, wherever you go, in any manner you choose, without asking permission from anyone, ever. You have this right not because of the Second Amendment, or because of your citizenship, but because you were born a human being. A government can either respect this right or violate it. There is no middle ground.

No new laws could have prevented this massacre, nor could the enforcement of existing laws. People who have decided to murder don't worry about whether there is also a law prohibiting them from having a gun. They don't see a "No guns" sign and turn away in disappointment. No, they ignore those laws and walk right past that sign knowing that their grim task has been made much easier because most decent people will obey those dangerous rules even at the risk of their life- and the lives of their loved ones.

But what about the "mentally ill"? Shouldn't something be done to keep guns away from them? Any law that can forbid anyone from owning a gun can be used against you, too, and it still won't stop the bad guys from getting one anyway. Also consider that the anti-liberty bigots who don't want you to have a gun consider your determination to own one a "mental illness" that should disqualify you from owning one. It's a "catch 22" and you aren't permitted to diagnose yourself.

What about an outright ban? Even if you managed to get every gun away from every member of the public, you would also have to remove them from the hands of police and the military since any gun can be stolen, or sold for black market prices. This is what all prohibitions will always do for any product. Plus, guns are not that hard to build from scratch.

The people calling for more gun laws, stronger enforcement, or a bigger surveillance state "for safety" are ignoring reality in favor of feeling like something is being done. Next time I'll look at more of the problems with the failed social engineering experiment euphemistically called "gun control".

.

I am...

I am an anarchist. I don't believe in "rulers" or states, and believe the only government that has ever worked, or ever will, is self-government (self control). I don't look for anyone else to shoulder my responsibilities or save me from the consequences of my actions. I rule my own life even as others try to rule me. I would be an "enemy of the State" if I cared that much about such a silly group of clowns in funny hats.

(Re-posted from my facebook status a few days ago.)

Bad day.

This is a difficult day for me. A bad day.

My youngest daughter is starting kindergarten in a government school today. Against my wishes. But I have been outvoted.

She wants to go, because she loves being around other kids. And because she thinks "recess" is "school".

Her mom wants her to go because- well, I am not sure why but I have several unflattering theories.

My parents want her to go because they are "patriotic" statists who think government schools are great and necessary for education. And, I suspect, because they want to see her get "the other side" of the story- the pro-USA side- away from my influence. And probably because here the government school also pushes a religious agenda which they would like to see her exposed to. That, along with any exposure to the National Socialist "Pledge of Allegiance" or DARE will undoubtedly make for some interesting interactions for me. Interactions I do not look forward to.

I am not a tyrant, and believe my daughter should be allowed to choose for herself, but I also know that with her natural inclination, and the cheerleading for school coming at her from every person other than me, I lost the battle before it even began.

I had assumed from the beginning that I would be homeschooling/unschooling her. Now I feel I have failed her, even though she doesn't know it yet. I also feel lost and useless since I have been caring for her every hour of every day since she was born- five years ago tomorrow.

So I am in a really bad mood, which is not my normal condition.

.

My New Look!

An improvement, no?

Check out some other uses of this instant masterpiece on Claire's blog.