Some weeks are better skipped

This has been quite a week.

Beginning Monday about noon, it has been taken up by the emergency room, and trips to the doctor and surgeon in the Big City an hour and a half away.  And there will be more trips next week and a surgery next Friday- when I have to be there by 5AM.  And then there will be more trips to The Big City the next week.  I wish gas prices were a lot lower.

The medical problem isn't mine (it's my daughter's mom's) but since she doesn't drive, and since I should be concerned ...

So far I have managed to keep writing and posting in between being gone large chunks of the week, but no guarantees for the next week.  Fortunately, Blogger lets me schedule posts ahead of time so no one notices when I'm gone.  I still have some written and scheduled for the next few days.

Plus, my sister, whom I haven't seen in 12 or 13 years, is supposed to be moving here from Los Angeles, with her girlfriend.  The last we knew she planned on being here yesterday.  But, after supposedly picking up the rental truck (which my parents sent her the money to rent) Monday, and running into delay after delay, no one has heard from her since Wednesday evening.  She has never been very good about answering calls or texts in a timely manner, but this is ridiculous.  Is she avoiding everyone now?  Did she get cold feet?  Did her girlfriend balk about leaving California?  Mechanical trouble?  Did they get hijacked?  The truck was supposed to be turned in by opening time this morning.  Did she even get the truck?  I know my parents are worried.  So am I.  But I'm also suspicious.

UPDATE: The sister has been found.  They are only one state away- they say they had packed the phones and just dug them out.  Should be here before morning.

UPDATE #2:  My sister and her girlfriend are finally here.  Safe, sound, and exhausted.  I am also exhausted after helping unload the truck.  But I'm very happy they are here now.


.

Known by your enemies

How do you feel about people who rape women and then murder them?  If you are like me you probably don't care much for them, and celebrate when one is killed by his intended victim or a rescuer.  Right?

But why do you assume the murderous rapists are bad guys?

Do you think you should become a homicidal rapist for a year so that you can see things from their perspective?  Would this change your mind... and should you change your mind?  Does anyone actually think this way?

Well, apparently some people "think" this way.  On my post about the disgusting religion of "Officer Safety" one brillyunt thinkur had this to say:

"You are obviously clueless about anything but your poor insecure feelings that some Officer must have hurt. I consider you below contempt. Why not go and be an Officer and get back with me after a year of experience. Sometimes one needs to be educated to know how little he knows."

Boo frickin' hoo.

How many times has this been demanded of me?  I have lost count.  Seriously.

I have to have been abused by a cop before I can be opposed to abuse by cop?  A close friend or relative must first be murdered by a cop before I can know that this is wrong?  I have to then become an aggressive authority-crazed Taser-jockey before I can have an opinion about their disgusting acts and the harm they cause?  I have to become one of them to understand how "wonderful, kind, honest, hardworking, necessary, and misunderstood" they are?  I have to have experience in imposing counterfeit "laws" on people for the "official" duly-elected or appointed mafia before I can know it is wrong to punish or kidnap people for doing things that do not violate any other individual in any way?  No, I don't.

I can be just as offended by other people being terrorized and murdered.  It is called "empathy".  And being ethical.  It doesn't have to be personal.  I can't imagine being one of those who only recognize evil when it is attacking them.  What is wrong with people like that?

I know... the commenter is either a reaver or a cop-sucker, and his opinion on cops means just as much as the opinions of the Manson cult concerning their guru.

Still, it is revolting to suggest that I would ever lower myself to become a cop.  A sheriff, maybe, but a type this commenter would soak his pants over.

Homicidal rapists are the bad guys strictly because they violate the Zero Aggression Principle.  Cops are the bad guys for the exact same reason.  And more.  Not only do cops violate the ZAP, they also steal as an integral part of their "job"- they would lose their "job" if they didn't commit these evil acts.  Then they demand you thank them for violating you.  Scum!  I can't become a cop because I have pledged to myself and to my neighbors to not do these things, and to never help LEOs do those things, either.

If this draws fire from some particularly twisted statists, so be it.  It is an honor to have certain kinds of people as my enemy.


.

The "cost" of a hurricane

So, Hurricane Sandy may cost $50 billion.  OK.  But I wonder how much the typical "nice" day costs?  How much does a sunny day cost in damage done by the sun?  How much does a gentle rain cost?

It's like the cold spell (or heat wave) that is said to have claimed X number of lives.  How many people does a pleasant day kill?  How many people die doing things on a nice day who would have survived had the weather been nasty enough to keep them inside?

When calculating these things- if that is even a valid goal- you should subtract out the cost in money and lives that would have been "spent" anyway.  I have my doubts that this is done, since the larger the number, the more dramatic the news and the more emotions will be inflamed.

Everything has a cost.  Be prepared so that you aren't caught off-guard.  Then, enjoy the wind and rain.  Don't fear the uncertainty.


.

Denial

Frustration.  But you can't get through to some people no matter what.  Even if they are staring down the barrel of a gun.  Or a storm.

With Hurricane Sandy aiming directly at my friends in Pennsylvania I took it upon myself to mention to some of them that I hoped they were taking precautions.

Universally I met with the standard reaction, if they reacted at all:

"Oh, nothing ever happens around here.  I'm not going to be paranoid.  The electric company will keep the lights on, or fix it quick if anything happens.  I have a couple of bottles of water, and some food.  I can go over to ___'s house, or where I work, if I need food or water.  It's just down the block.  I don't need anything.  My cell phone works and it's charged.  Etc."

Sigh.  Denial.  "It can't happen to me!"

Why can't people realize that sometimes you can't just walk a block or two to somewhere you believe will have what you need, and be able to get it when you arrive?  Why do people not realize that cell phones need their towers to be standing and be powered in order to work- even if charged?  That sometimes things are bigger than a couple of days can fix?

How did people become convinced that it is "paranoia" to be able to take care of yourself?  How did people become convinced it is somehow morally superior to refuse to be prepared to survive without relying on other people?

How can people not see the fun in being ready for unexpected events- or even those with plenty of warning?

Does no one think ahead and consider it wise to be prepared anymore?  I guess this means that, once again, I am "No One".

**
UPDATE: read the comment I just posted below.


.

Restitution could provide justice

Restitution could provide justice

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 28, 2012.)

Recent and ongoing local events illustrate the folly of imprisonment. The situation is not unique. The same type of events repeat, in limited variation, all across America on a continuous basis.

The Stanford Prison Experiment, and subsequent studies which keep confirming it, should demonstrate that you can't give one group of people dominion over another group of people without both groups losing their humanity. It's not healthy for anyone.

Imprisonment also provides a taxpayer-subsidized "Criminal University" where skills, experience, and lessons are passed from one bad guy to many more people- quite a few of whom are "enrolled", not for attacking or stealing, but for violating arbitrary edicts against self-determination or private property rights. You can't teach people to be good by enforcing bad rules.

The primary goal shouldn't be punishment; but protecting the innocent and private property. If punishment actually helped achieve that goal then a better argument for it could be made, but it doesn't. Only restitution provides some justice to the victim. It costs a violator nothing extra to sit in a cage while the victim is "taxed"- stolen from yet again- to keep prisoners. Only the imprisonment industry benefits, although they have a great many people fooled.

Sure, most people will say that there are just some prisoners who should never walk free again. If someone needs to be caged, they need to be dead, but no government is honest enough to be trusted with that power. Remove the "laws" (the illegitimate rules against self defense and against the most effective defensive tools) that protect aggressors and thieves from the rightful consequences of their actions, to bring the price of being a bad guy back up to where it needs to be, and watch the population of actual bad guys dwindle.

And stop harassing everyone else.

Anyone imprisoned for anything other than theft or aggression is, in truth, a political prisoner. Accidents are not crimes, and while they may create an debt, that in no way involves the State. The US now imprisons a larger percentage of its residents than has any regime in history- more even than those such as Soviet Russia and China, not exactly shining examples of liberty or justice. It's not that Americans are worse than any population in history- it's that the laws are wrong.

When your course of action fails to keep things from getting worse, it's time to do something different. Sometimes, the way it's always been done is also the way it's always been done wrong.

.

Greed- The definition

I think "greed" is basically "self-interest with regard to physical things".

This is not bad in any way, no matter what some people may believe.

However, when you twist that "self-interest with regard to physical things" to where you value it enough to steal, defraud, and/or murder for those things, then that is where you committed the evil act- the greed itself isn't evil.  This is why statism is "greedy" in an evil way- it steals, defrauds, and murders... and claims to be doing it for "the common good".

Everyone is greedy- even those who do altruistic things- otherwise they wouldn't survive. It's how you express that greed that can be the problem.

.

Wading into "preparedness"

Claire Wolfe has been having a preparedness discussion that has a lot of very good information.  Not a hand-wringing TEOTWAWKI- "you GOTTA have ALL this stuff" discussion, but a calm, realistic discussion.

I highly recommend you check it out.


Preparedness priorities, part I

Preparedness priorities, part II

Preparedness priorities, part III

Preparedness priorities, part IV

Preparedness priorities, part V

You can also check out my Preparedness page.

Expect the unexpected. Be adaptable. Survival preps are fun, and they should be fun. If you make them fun people will want to join you. If you make preps tedious and serious people will call you names.

Please don't be like the person I mentioned preparedness to yesterday.  She is convinced there is some basis to the "Mayan Apocalypse" stuff, and that it will actually end up being a good thing, but when I asked if she had set aside "extra food, cash, or whatever", she replied emphatically that no, that was "fear".  I kinda talked her past that, I think, but I wonder why people feel this way about normal "insurance".


.

Perusing Dictionary definitions

I am always having to answer to the fact that "The Dictionary" conflates "anarchy" with "chaos", "destruction", and "disorder".  Or presumably negative concepts to that effect.  And I am not often believed outside the anarchist "community".

People don't seem to like it when I point out that dictionary definitions can be wrong due to common usage being incorrect- eventually if enough people use the word in the wrong way, the dictionary reflects that error.

Such is the case with "anarchy".

Several times I have been asked to give one example of another word that has suffered the same fate, and until now I haven't been able to.

That's right- I said "until now".

I have found another word that the dictionary says means two opposite things.  One word is said to mean both "to examine or consider with attention and in detail" and "to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner".

If you do one, you are not doing the other.  The word is "peruse".

Dictionaries are not infallible, and are subject to accidental errors and intentional manipulation.

.

This prohibition is different

Many times I have pointed out that the old alcohol prohibition (which never really ended, but was just changed to profit a nastier gang) and the current prohibition on politically-incorrect drugs have a lot in common.  Such as creating gang violence and inflating prices and selecting for criminals in the supply of the prohibited substances.  Without making the demand for the substances go away even a little.

There is one big difference between the old alcohol prohibition and the current everything else prohibition, though: the most dangerous gangs this prohibition has spawned are the ones with the badges.

Now, I admit, the old prohibition is not something I have first-hand knowledge of.  And history books often lie.  Still, I'm willing to believe them when they claim the worst prohibition-related violence back then was committed by the "criminals".

That simply isn't the case with the current prohibition.

This time, more innocent people are hurt and killed by the prohibition enforcers.  They are worse, by at least an order of magnitude, than the prohibition violators.

And, even the prohibition violators who cause real harm are outnumbered greatly by those who violate prohibition non-violently.  The same can't be said about the enforcers.  Even the "best" of the prohibition enforcers is destroying lives every time he kidnaps or robs someone who did no actual wrong, but only ignored a counterfeit "law".  And the enforcers who cause real harm also outnumber the prohibition violators who cause real harm.  It's time to put an end to this stupidity.


.

Changes needed to ensure justice

Changes needed to ensure justice

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 21, 2012)

"Justice" is the attempt to take an individual who has been harmed by an act of aggression or property loss and correct the damage; to return the victim to as close to the "pre-victimized condition" as is possible.

What, then, is "injustice"? It is often simply the lack of justice. This could be injustice through omission or a case of justice being impossible to provide. Or, it could be (and often is) the opposite of justice. Anti-justice.

This might be the attempt to harm an individual who has already been harmed by an attack or a theft. Laws that criminalize the failure to report a stolen gun being one example.

Injustice could be the attempt to punish an individual for an offense they didn't actually commit. This happens more than most people want to admit- just check out The Innocence Project to see how many innocent people have been railroaded into a conviction just because "someone needs to be punished" when a law is broken, and because prosecutors and judges want to be seen as "tough on crime".

Injustice could also be the attempt to punish an individual for doing something "illegal" that does not harm any individual nor anyone's private property; a "mala prohibitum" act. There is never any justice involved in prosecuting any victimless crime; doing so always creates a victim out of thin air.

If you advocate, pass, support, or enforce any "law" which attempts to criminalize and punish anything other than a physical attack on an innocent person, or the theft or destruction of private property, the result will always be injustice. If you permit a government court to handle any case where the government is an interested party, an egregious conflict of interest, the result will frequently be injustice.

To ensure justice, some things need to change fundamentally. All laws concerned with anything other than an attack on the innocent or the violation of private property need to be abolished and everyone imprisoned for these false offenses needs to be freed immediately. The incentive to punish someone, anyone, for every crime needs to take a back seat to finding the real perpetrator and making things right with his victim through restitution. Finally, courts need to be separated from the control of the government and there needs to be competition in providing this service.

If you value justice you will insist on these changes; if you only give lip service to justice while actually thirsting for punishment and retribution you'll be content with the status quo. Where do you stand?


.

"Officer safety"

I despise the bogus concept of "officer safety".  What a completely disgusting justification for anything some corrupt cop (redundancy alert) wants to do to you.

Why would a reaver's safety be more important than mine or anyone else's?  Why shouldn't I be able to disarm and cuff any cop I encounter as a safety precaution?  You know, just until I ascertain that he is not a threat to me or to anyone else ("the public")?  Who is actually more likely to shoot whom?  Well, check out the statistics for yourself.

I don't shoot people whom I claim were driving "too fast", or whose tires I claim crossed a painted stripe, just because they don't wish to be stopped and robbed or kidnapped by me.  Cops do.  I don't shoot people who are trying to get away from me.  Cops do.  I don't break into people's houses because they are doing something I don't like, and then murder them if they resist.  Cops do.  I don't rob, kidnap, or murder people for growing some kind of plant.  Cops do.  So exactly who is endangered by whom?

I don't feel endangered by some guy with a holstered gun on his hip, unless he also wears a badge.  Cops do.  I don't even feel endangered by most people who have unholstered their gun- unless, once again, they hide behind a badge.  Cops flip out over that.  The reason I don't is that I am not a coward, I am not paranoid, and I don't go around escalating situations that I initiate.  It's that simple.

If a LEO feels he needs to violate people for his own "safety", it indicates to me that he knows he is guilty of doing things that normal people know are wrong.  A guilty conscience- probably combined with an instinctual knowledge that his victims would be ethically justified in killing him for his evil behavior- makes his own safety become his primary concern.  It shows that he is a violator and a coward, and somewhere deep inside he probably knows it.

If a cop is concerned about his safety, he can do the same things others do for safety.  Wear a seatbelt- or not; don't look down the barrel of your gun to see if it's loaded; don't initiate car chases; don't trespass; don't rob; don't be an aggressor; don't stick your tongue into light sockets; don't harass people who are minding their own business; and don't interfere with travelers.  Distilled down: don't be an idiot or a prick and your safety factor increases exponentially.

But this is too hard for people whose brains are encumbered with the Enforcer Defect.

They want to be able to be a bad guy and still go home at the end of their shift- after doing the wrong thing for hours at your expense.  Well, Officer, the rest of us have just as much right to go home at the end of your shift as you do.  And unless we are stupid enough to seek you out, our lives are worth more than yours could ever be.  We didn't start it.  And we outrank you, since you are supposed to be our servant.  You're a butler-gone-bad.

Your cowardice, paranoia, and your sense of entitlement is an indication that you can't be trusted with any amount of "authority".  You need to go find an honest job and stop being a predator.  Unfortunately most cops can't handle a real job- especially one that has real risks beyond the minuscule "risks" their preferred "career" entails.  That's obvious since they keep being cops.

Well, Mr. Cop, your safety means as much to me as the safety of a rapist.  I don't need your "help".  You're fired.  Now, go away.


.

Wonders never cease...

I just spoke to a Texas family member who is a very staunch Republican.

He just told me he sent in his absentee ballot- and voted straight Libertarian.

He was tired of voting for Republicans who are indistinguishable from the Democrats- and that's really all there are.  He wanted to send a message to the Republicans.

Now, I'm ambivalent about v*ting (as Claire Wolfe would write it)- I don't think it's the right thing for me to do right now.  But for you?  You'll have to decide that for yourself.  But it still tickled me to hear how he voted.

So, how about it, disenfranchised Republicans and Democrats?  You can overcome the inertia.  Voting for your parties' nominees is a wasted vote.  It tells them that you like what they've been doing and how they've been doing it.  For decades.

Do something different this one time and see if you don't feel better about yourself.  Either vote for someone in a third party (and if you do that you might as well vote for the guys and gals who are in the third LARGEST party), or refuse to play a completely rigged game at all.

The choice is yours... choose wisely.


.

Who is the real danger?

Who is a greater danger to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

Freelance criminals?  Or cops?

Anytime one goes out in public, and many times when you think you are safe in your own home, you are in danger of being victimized by an aggressor or thief.

The chance of being victimized on any particular day is very small. Of course, it does happen without warning every single day to many people, all of whom thought it wouldn't happen to them and couldn't happen here.  You should always be prepared.

Many people (more than the anti-liberty bigots/gun-haters suspect) take responsibility for their own safety, and the safety of the innocent people around them, by carrying a weapon.  With or, in most cases, without government permission.

Unfortunately for civilization, the chance of being stopped and attacked by a cop who is willing to enforce victim disarmament "laws", having your weapon discovered, and being kidnapped or murdered, grows larger each and every day that those counterfeit "laws" stay "on the books".

Carrying a weapon "deeply" enough that it is less likely to be seen by the reavers makes it much harder to access when needed in a hurry to fend off an attacker or thief.  But this is the reality of the world we live in.  You weigh the risks and decide which risk is greater.

You can avoid the danger of being attacked by the badged reavers for the "crime" of taking personal responsibility for your own safety by abdicating that responsibility and walking around unarmed. Or you can beg permission from The State to be "allowed" to carry a weapon.  Subject to their whims, restrictions, disarmament zones, fees, and inclusion in criminal databases, of course.

Either of these poor options robs you of your humanity in a real way, since it is an admission that you belong to The State.

Unfortunately, the danger from government enforcers is probably greater today than the danger of being victimized by freelance criminals. It makes the decision more difficult.

You have to decide based upon your incomplete assessment of the situation surrounding you- Who is a bigger danger: criminals or cops?  I know who I think is more dangerous.

I expect to be able to go my whole life without ever being put in much real danger from an encounter with a "criminal"- danger that I can't handle- but I have already had several encounters with cops that could have turned deadly if the cop was simply having a bad day.  So far, I've lucked out, but I know who is more dangerous to the good guys.


.

Finally- a distinction worth noticing

The impossible- no, the highly improbable- has happened.

Whereas I had previously thought there is no difference between the two Obamney puppets, the supporters of one have finally made a difference.

It's official: due to the actions of Romney's supporters, I now actually hate him worse than I hate Obama.  That is quite an achievement.  You should be proud of yourselves.

The candidates themselves couldn't have achieved that.  There is nothing substantive, and very little that is vanishingly trivial, to distinguish Obamney 1.0 from Obamney 2.0.  Being unwillingly subjected to their vacuous words and insane opinions wherever I turn couldn't even have accomplished this (but I have managed to avoid this fate).  Only rabid supporters could.

I know that if there were an actual "conservative", with an "R" after his name, on the ballot, you guys would despise Romney and would be doing everything possible to defeat him.  He is the anathema of everything you stand for- according to your apparently forgotten words.  But you are blinded by your hatred of Obama.  I'm not.  I can see that your guy is just as big a socialist- just as corrupt- just as deviant in his beliefs- as that which you now claim to hate in order to create a difference where none exists.

No, I don't like Obama one bit.  I simply hate Romney just a little bit more.

Congratulations, Romnoids.


.

Withholding relief = torture

I, and many others, refer to the "War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs" as stupid and evil.

If you have any doubts about those adjectives, you haven't been paying attention.

To keep self-destructive people from harming themselves (probably impossible), and to keep others from doing something they think is fun (also probably impossible), the drug thugs keep sick people from getting desperately-needed relief. That isn't just stupid, it's evil.

Now, whether marijuana / Cannabis is the magical miracle cure-all that some claim it is or not is irrelevant.  Aspirin doesn't cure the root cause of a headache or muscle soreness, but people take it anyway, just for temporary relief.  Why shouldn't they?

And, just maybe, there is something to all the clinical studies (the non-government ones) that show Cannabis to be a powerful cancer fighter.  Along with having other benefits.  But what if it doesn't cure anything?

If marijuana can make a chronically miserable person feel a little better for a while that is all the justification needed for using it- as if any justification were necessary.  Which it isn't.

I have a couple of dear friends who are in constant pain from health conditions.  Because they continue to be in constant pain I suspect that they avoid the simple relief they could have because it is "illegal".  That absolutely infuriates me!

You have no business telling someone else what they can introduce into their bloodstream.  None.  Pretending you do is just wrong.  There is no excuse for it.

And murdering people for possessing a plant or any other politically-incorrect drug is just plain evil.

If you support the War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs you might as well  be honest about what you support.  Go out and start torturing children and murdering parents yourself instead of hiring thugs with badges to do your evil work while you stay out of harm's way.


.

The opposite of America

First off, I will say that no State is legitimate.  Not one.  To create one that is can't be done.  The very nature of being a State is filled with illegitimacy from the very foundation and throughout its entire structure.

But, I get really tired of those who mistake "The United States of America" for "America".

They are two entirely different things.

Back in the beginning of America, when those states that made it up were written about collectively, it was always called "the united States of America".  No capitalized "u".  America was what mattered.  The states taken together made up America.  One American state would have been "a state of America"; two would have been "two states of America", and if two governors declared war on each other, their states could have been referred to as "warring states of America".  There were states, they joined together in America, but their union was not the primary focus.

Suppose, using a personal example, I referred to my family as the "the joined individuals of the McManigal family".  It would be ridiculous for anyone to primarily think of us as "The Joined Individuals", rather than "McManigals.  It would be substituting the description for the actual thing.

To think of America as "The United States", or even "The United States of America", is just as ridiculous.  

The United States is just the group of evil individuals, the government or "The State", who happen to currently prevent America from experiencing the full flower of liberty that was all that America was supposed to be about.

The United States is the worst enemy America has ever faced.  America is only America as long as it protects the individual from the tyranny of The United States.  Apparently that's a battle America lost and The United States of "America" won.

Time to reboot.  Let's dispense with The State next time, and instead just stay out of the way as people freely associate in a truly voluntary manner.

.

You are responsible for your choices

You are responsible for your choices

(My Clovis News Journal/Portales News-Tribune column for September 14, 2012.)

In the end, I am only responsible for what I do.

I can make sure my kids are raised with my values and principles, but that doesn't guarantee they will follow when they're grown. I can let people know when they are doing the wrong thing, and refuse to go along, but if they have adopted a different value system they won't necessarily accept mine. I can try to lead by example and try to inform people so that they may realize things they had never before considered, but I can't force anyone to learn anything they don't wish to learn. I can do my best, yet it is not my responsibility when anyone else continues down the wrong path.

When it comes right down to it you can make only yourself do what you know to be right.

But, while I am only responsible for me, I am FULLY responsible for me. If I do the wrong thing I can't blame it on a bad "law" or on the expectations of other people. It isn't circumstances that cause one to attack the innocent or steal, or to accept property that others have stolen on your behalf. The requirements of a job don't excuse any unethical actions, nor does the support of "the majority". Making up different names for coercion or theft doesn't magically make wrong become right.

On one hand, it is a heavy burden to refuse to blame others for your actions, but on the other hand it is quite liberating to realize that it is pointless to accept the blame for other people. To further lighten your load, be mindful of all you do.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but it seems a lot of people "get it", even if they feel unable to express themselves openly around their peers. Almost every week I have at least one person approach me to thank me for saying what they are thinking. That this many are seeing through the smoke and mirrors of The State is inspiring. Maybe eventually enough people will realize that there is strength in being right, and that we are millions strong- one at a time, and the institutionalized theft and coercion will no longer be tolerated.

But if not, the more of us who refuse to do the wrong thing, even when acceptable, the better society will become. The tipping point is approaching. Help bring it on by accepting the responsibility for all you do.


.

Accepting welfare- wrong, right, or neither?

I may be on the verge of changing my mind and deciding I have been wrong.  For a long time.

At least on the subject of welfare.

The inconsistency of those who complain about people on welfare, while collecting their own types of welfare, has always annoyed me.  Plus, I would rather see idlers collecting welfare for doing nothing than see a reaver collecting his government paycheck- still welfare- for enforcing "laws" that cause actual harm.  So maybe I haven't been quite as opposed to welfare all along as some others have been.

I would probably qualify for a lot of welfare programs.  "Health care", food stamps, and whatever else that might be out there that doesn't require a history of government "service" to be eligible.  Funny, but I don't even know what welfare is offered.

Anyway...

Some people I have been discussing this with have actually made me question my belief that it would always be wrong for me to accept any sort of welfare. I am mostly recalling this train of thought just from my own remembrance of the points brought up and if I misquote what anyone actually said, I apologize.  I hope I get the gist right, anyway.

It started off with someone suggesting that a good way to topple the State is to bleed it dry, signing up for every handout you can get.  Claire Wolfe calls this type of person, when they are doing it for the cause of liberty, a "Cockapoo".  I have always been highly suspicious of the Cockapoo, suspecting that they simply want to justify getting handouts.  But if they do, that is their business- I just want them to be honest about it.

Then it was pointed out that Jim Davies has written that he believes it is OK to take the handouts.  Hmm. I really respect his opinions.

Yet, Carl Watner, whom I also respect, says it is not OK.  Back to square one.

One thing I worry about, were I to go this route, is developing a dependency on the handouts.  Would the harm I do to myself be greater than any "benefit" I could gain?

One person suggested to me that a way to avoid this dependency is to use the handouts (or the money "saved" by accepting the handouts) for investing.  I would think buying gold and silver, guns and ammo, and stocking up on food and survival supplies would be a good investment.  A nicer TV, not so much.  Then, if/when the handouts stop coming, you haven't become dependent on them, but have actually given yourself a tangible safety net.  Maybe so, anyway.

But are there drawbacks beyond dependency?

Even if I didn't succumb to dependency, would I be setting a bad example? Is this act truly the same thing as "recovering stolen property"?  My stolen property is long gone.  Probably none of it actually went to any welfare recipients, regardless of what "conservatives" say.  The money that goes to welfare payments and government paychecks is "created" out of thin air by the Federal Reserve or banks.  Is the act of accepting welfare, then, still "receiving stolen property", stolen from others instead of from my earlier self, as I have always thought of it?  I really don't know.

Another problem I see is "What would people think?"

Maybe I don't care about this as much as some people do, but I still don't want to destroy any good influence I may have had over the years.  Maybe I give myself too much credit there, but it's an uplifting delusion.  Would my going on welfare say to people "Hey, I now depend on the government for my very survival, so see how great and necessary The State is- even for me!".  Would I look like a hypocrite to the average statist around me?

Sure, getting the money could be viewed as simply compensating for the money and opportunity being stolen by government- just trying to balance the equation.  If not for the interference of government I am quite sure I would be more successful than I am.  True or not, it's what I believe without having any way of knowing for certain.  Does The State owe me for this act of economic wrong perpetrated upon me?  Or am I just looking for justification?

I truly am not sure what to think about this yet.  At this point it is just a mental exercise.  I dislike admitting I was wrong as much as anyone, but I hate being wrong and remaining wrong even more.  It would be just as bad as being right and changing my mind and becoming wrong.

So, what do you think?  Weigh in on the matter and tell me what I have missed.


.

How Stupid?

Here's an amusing blog post that was brought to my attention:  How Stupid are Americans?


.

Backed into corners...

Recently I read that if you don't have a Facebook page, the feds consider this suspicious.  You might just be a terrorist.

On the other hand, the army's little exercise in paranoia says that if you do participate in "social networks", such as Facebook, that is a sign you might be a violent extremist.

Hmmm.

And, of course, anyone who likes the Constitution is a domestic enemy.  As is anyone, again according to the army, who expresses hatred for the Constitution.

Terrorist if you do; terrorist if you don't.

So if you ever had any doubt that you are a suspected, violent extremist and domestic terrorist, it should now be resolved.  The feds have spoken.  YOU are their enemy.

Might as well enjoy it.


.