Gun rights vs. Health care rights

I have seen people complaining today that in America gun ownership is a right, but health care (specifically, mental health care) is not.

Guess what, rights are the same everywhere- in Ghana, Japan, America, Antarctica, Italy, Argentina, Tasmania, Iceland, wherever.  Rights are identical for every human being no matter where they live.  The local government can either respect those rights or violate them, but they can't alter them one tiny bit.

So, yes, in America (and everywhere else) gun ownership is a right.

As is health care- as long as you provide it for yourself.

No one is obligated to give you a gun you didn't buy, and no one is obligated to treat your health issues for free either.

You have the fundamental human right to own and carry the gun you obtained without theft or coercion, and you have the fundamental human right to seek any health care you want as long as you don't get it through theft or coercion.

Forcing a medical provider to treat you for "free", or to force someone else to pay the fee for you, is slavery.  It is WRONG.

So, whining about gun rights as opposed to health care rights is exposing yourself as an idiot.


.

Fear? No. Resolve.

I am not afraid of random violence. I am resolved to prevent or stop it. I am resolved to defy those who want me to be a sitting duck, or to stand by and watch innocents be attacked. I will never comply with those who would wish to take away the tools that allow me to say "STOP!" and back it up with action.

.

Elementary school shooting- like tragic clockwork

Once again, "conveniently" just as puppeticians are discussing a plot to violate your fundamental human right to own and to carry any kind of gun you desire, everywhere you go, in any manner you see fit, without ever asking permission from anyone, a "Manchurian Shooter" has been activated.

I see some anti-liberty bigots crying that "this isn't the time for politics".  Well, they would be right if their anti-liberty politics were not directly to blame.

The story doesn't change; only the details do.

Put innocent people in a place where the good guys are forbidden to have guns.  Make sure escape is made difficult- a bottleneck is good, especially if there are doors that can be locked in a "lock-down" so that no one can get out of harm's way.  Propose some new anti-gun "laws".  Activate the shooter.  Then scream that people who didn't kill or harm anyone must be punished for the acts of a bad guy who broke every law in existence in order to carry out his act.

A person who has no compunction about murdering children will NOT obey your newest anti-gun "law".  And neither will anyone else who sees that you are handing society over to the murderers a little more with every new anti-liberty "law" you parasites propose, pass, and enforce.  It is past time to say "Enough!  Not one more inch!"

New "laws" will NEVER prevent this.  Only by getting rid of counterfeit "laws" that criminalize self-defense and the tools to effectively carry it out will you prevent most of these massacres.  But nothing- not even rounding up all gun owners and putting them in the ovens- will prevent them all.

People who are determined to kill a bunch of people will always find a way to make the attempt.  Do you want to make sure their intended victims are helpless in the face of the attack, or do you want to make sure there is a chance to stop the attack before the body count climbs?

Don't even give me that tired crap about how you don't "think" more guns is the answer.  Because it most assuredly is.  Don't lie about "bullets flying", or "body armor" (which the Aurora shooter has been shown to have NOT been wearing, by the way).  Don't start spewing lies about cops being the only ones "well-trained enough" to be able to stop these attacks.  Because cops never do manage to stop anything in these "gun free zones".

If you advocate regulating the right of self defense, and the guns that make it more likely to survive, then YOU have blood on your hands.  YOU are guilty of aiding and abetting the murderers.  Don't you dare start trying to point the finger at those of us who work to prevent these acts that get you so excited.  Your Blood Dancing disgusts me.  You are evil.

I hate the fact that there is never time to grieve for the innocents murdered due to the Blood Dancers, those Mass-Murderer Fan Club goons, immediately using this "opportunity" to try to attack me.  And you.  I have to put away my feelings and prepare to defend myself from those who hate liberty.  I can cry later.


.

Don't pledge? Hand hecklers a card

Yesterday's Pledge of Allegiance problem, and an exchange with L. Neil Smith, resulted in this project:

How about a business card that you can hand to anyone who objects to your act of self-ownership?

I made them in PDF form, and for Avery template 8371 and I'll email the files to anyone who requests them.  Later, I may add them to one of my websites for downloading, but I'll wait and see what people think.

As I do with most of my work, I offer this for free.  Feel free to tip me for my work if you feel so inclined, because, as always, I could really use the money, but it is not necessary to do so if you'd like the files.  Really.


.

Today, I was "this guy"

No, I am no August Landmesser.  I did follow my conscience, though.

It may not have been exactly a Nazi rally, and I probably wasn't in any real danger, but if you won't stand up (or remain seated) for what's right when it is easy, how do you expect to stand up for what's right when it is hard?

You have read of my difficulties since my daughter chose to enroll in the government school.  Today her kindergarten class had a Christmas concert (complete with State-sponsored Christianity).  I was shocked, although I probably shouldn't have been, when they began the program with a Nazi ritual: the Pledge of Allegiance.

I did not stand or chant with the crowd, and may have been the only to not do so.  I try very hard to avoid places and situations where this ritual will be followed- sometimes despite my best efforts I find myself in the middle of it.  I have not participated in years.

Yes, I felt self-conscious, but that's better than feeling like a Nazi.  I was also a little afraid of some "good ol' boy" wanting to make an example of me.  I'm glad nothing happened.


.

Election does not change abuse

Election does not change abuse

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 9, 2012.)


The election has come and gone, and even though I am writing this before any actual results are in, I already know the outcome with absolute certainty. Once again a crooked politician has won the presidency and America- specifically the liberty which is the only thing that distinguishes America from any second-rate banana republic- has been stomped down a little more. If you don't believe me let's discuss this again in three years or so and see where the situation stands at that time.

It is the same story every election. If the incumbent wins re-election he interprets this as a "mandate" for every scatterbrained socialist scheme he has been pursuing and throttles up his rush to destruction. If the opposition wins, he takes the helm with reckless abandon and continues the disastrous policies of his predecessor, with more vigor since he is fresh and energized and has a "mandate".

No new president changes course, or even puts on the brakes. Instead, after winning the election by pretending to differ from the incumbent, they all embrace the powers the other guy wielded and abused, put their own twist on the use and abuse, and start collecting more powers to hand off to the next guy, for him to wield and abuse in exciting new ways.

I can't believe some people don't see this.

In the long run, while the political clowns desperately want you to believe it matters what they do, it really doesn't. Remember this when choosing where to spend your precious energy.

Now that this quadrennial national circus is over for a while perhaps Americans can concentrate on important things.

Things like watching out for your neighbor without prying into his business.

Things like exploring new ways to make money and help the local economy while helping yourself- voluntarily.

Things like respecting other people's choices to do as they see fit, even if you really hate their particular choices, as long as they respect the same liberty for others.

Things like keeping your own house in order by refusing to attack the innocent, refusing to take any other person's property without their permission, and refusing to hire anyone to do either on your behalf.

In other words, acting like a neighbor instead of looking for a political advantage over anyone.

It will be a refreshing change. And, just maybe, the next time elections roll around you'll remember the important things instead of listening to the childish clowns and getting drawn into their playground squabbles.


.

"Planet Government" on Libertopia

I just posted another entry on Dispatches From Libertopia.  It is about the "Planet Government" project.

Enjoy.

.

It's about power

It's not about Obama.  It wasn't about Bush.  It wasn't about FDR or "America's Lenin", the mis-sainted Abraham Lincoln.

It's about giving the guy who demonstrates nothing but the fact that he can win an election the power to control things that are none of his business.

It doesn't matter if you like giving him that power, or if you only want him to use it against those people you don't like.  He doesn't deserve that power- no one does- and he can't use it without hurting innocent people.


.

No new ideas?

It used to bother me when I came up with a thought, a "new idea", and then discovered that other people (Lysander Spooner, H. D. Thoreau, etc.) had thought the same thought long before I did.

This doesn't bother me much anymore.

Some things are just so self-evident that people who think will continue to come up with the same ideas over and over again.  This is a very good thing.

The fact that I have an idea isn't very influential.  Perhaps someday someone more influential than me will have the idea and it will spread like wildfire.  Or, perhaps someday enough people will have the same idea at the same time and it will cause a huge shift in society.

Keep thinking those thoughts and don't worry that countless others throughout history have probably thought of the same thing.  There may be no new ideas, but there are certainly new situations where those old ideas are needed.

And be sure and take those liberty-enhancing thoughts you have and put them to work in the real world instead of keeping them hidden inside your head.  Because, ultimately, that's the only real value to having the ideas.


.

"Fighting for honor"?

A while back on another blog, a commenter went ballistic about "fighting for honor" in some hypothetical scenario (which I don't remember).  That really stuck in my head and has been rolling around in there since then.  Fighting for honor.  It's a concept I have heard all my life, but never gave it much thought.

Honor.  What is it?

Well, if you follow the link above you'll see that Dictionary.com says "honor" is:

1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
2. a source of credit or distinction: to be an honor to one's family.
3. high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor.
4. such respect manifested: a memorial in honor of the dead.
5. high public esteem; fame; glory: He has earned his position of honor.

How can you fight for any of those things?  I see nothing there that can be protected or enhanced by fighting for "honor".

If, though, you could, is it worth fighting for?

I don't think so.  In fact, I think if you fight for honor, you lose it.

I think you build honor by fighting for other things that demonstrate that you have honor, not for the honor, itself.

When you fight for the liberty of an enemy, you build honor.

When you fight for the right of others to do things that you don't personally like, but that they are not violating anyone else's rights by doing, your honor increases.

When you defend the innocent from an attacker, you show you have honor.

You don't need to fight for it.

When you fight because someone has questioned your honor, or your heritage, or your beliefs, your honor withers.

When you fight because you have been disrespected, your honor dies.

When you do evil things because you hope to boost your honor, you lose it.

At least in my eyes.  I have trouble seeing how it could be otherwise.


.

Government should open market

Government should open market

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 2, 2012.)


I will probably never understand those who feel that the solution to any problem is to get the government to do something about it, either by popular vote or government edict.

Very few things should ever be subject to a vote, and nothing that would violate the rights of the losing side should ever be put to a vote- nor imposed by law.

I recently watched an online video that told the story of how the Dutch got their bicycle paths. Instead of having those who thought it was a good idea join together in voluntary cooperation, the advocates instead joined forces to have government impose the plan on everyone. I'd agree with them that good bicycle paths are a great idea, and I'd enjoy having them, but if I force others to finance them I have taken something wonderful and turned it into something ugly. I have spat in the soup.

Why do you have to use coercion and "law" to effect changes that you think are a good idea? Is your plan not good enough that people would voluntarily support it? And is it so expensive that you can't allow those who are opposed, for whatever reason, to opt out of helping you pay for it? Nothing is that important.

The same applies to any government service.

I have no problem paying for what I use, or using what I am forced to pay for. The problem is being forced to pay for things that I neither want, nor use. Most coercively-financed things fall into this category.

In a free market situation I could choose the services that suit me best, at a price that is more appropriate for me, just by being allowed to spend my money as I see fit, rather than as some "majority" or "authority" demands.

I'm not saying force the government to stop offering its version of any service, just open the market to competition. If the government option is the best, people will support it. Voluntarily. With their own money, instead of with their neighbor's money.

The whole situation reminds me of the rich people who demand that the government raise their taxes. Nothing is stopping them from signing a bank account over to The State. The secret is, they know this already- they just want to force others to do the same thing. It is no different if the advocate of the government "solution" is poor. You can't be generous with other people's money. That is called "theft". It spoils the best of intentions.

.

Balance

There has to be a balance somewhere.

You need to be aware that the US government is capricious and evil.  You need to know that it can and will arbitrarily strand you far from home (after allowing you to leave its "borders"), and then, just maybe, "graciously" allow you to go home again- after a period of letting you sweat.

You need to be aware that cops will kidnap and murder you for doing things that are perfectly ethical.  Like carrying a gun or growing plants.

You need to be prepared for the fact that government goons can destroy your business for any number of sketchy "reasons"- that they can steal your home, car, and even your kids.

However, there have always been bad guys and there always will be- these are just the primary ones who happen to inflict this spot on the Earth at this time in history.  They aren't special.

You can't let these worthless parasites take away your joy in living.  That's what they would really like, and there's no point in handing them that trophy.

However, it isn't safe to ignore them or pretend they aren't the bad guys.

So what do you do?

I'd say, be aware, just don't obsess over them.  Stay balanced.  Find balance.  For every disgusting act of State that enrages you, find something beautiful to balance it out.  Live as free as you can in spite of the goons and their "laws".  Love deeply if you have the opportunity.  Laugh as often as you can.

And keep in mind that there will always be evil thugs who will try to destroy your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness- even in Libertopia.  Don't put them on a pedestal when their proper setting is the sewer.


.

US dollars = welfare? The alternative

I'm just sitting here wondering what the real difference is between Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)- US "dollars"- and welfare.

Neither has any basis in reality or inherent value.  Both are printed or electronically created out of thin air, and backed by nothing and really paid for by no one.  Other than the fact that the more of either one there is, the less value each "dollar" has.  Just like any other counterfeiting operation.

The use of either one also contributes to the coming economic collapse.

The only difference I can see is one of perception.

I haven't had a single paper "dollar" in my wallet for over a couple of weeks now, but in my pocket I have a couple of Morgan silver dollars, and a few ounces of .999 silver.  So, I'm "broke", yet I'm not.

Right now, that real money doesn't work well at most stores or for paying bills, but I don't carry it for "right now" anyway.  I carry it for when a paper (or electronic) "dollar" finds its true value.  And, I carry it in case of emergency, in the hopes that if I find myself in dire circumstances I will have something of value to trade, since I usually have no FRNs.

As long as other people keep accepting FRNs in trade, I will continue to accept them.  But the instant that trust starts to fade I will start only accepting REAL money for goods or services.  I hope others are smart enough to do the same.  Let the hyperinflation be powerless against you.


.

Economic contemplation

I should probably go out and get one of those "jobs" I've heard so much about and not spend so much time writing.

If anyone is feeling a little generous, this would be a nice time to donate a little bit to my Paypal account.

But, if not, I completely understand.

.

"No true Scotsbertarian"

How many times have you heard- or written- "No real libertarian would ever...."?  Did someone throw the "No true Scotsman" fallacy in the mix right away?  Did it actually apply?

Because it often doesn't.

If you say "no true Scotsman can survive a complete decapitation", or "no true Scotsman is native to the Moon" then you'd be correct.  By definition.  It's not the same as saying "no true Scotsman would wear pink socks".

I've seen that fallacy called into play when someone says "no libertarian can be in favor of any form of taxation" or "no libertarian can support the 'troops'"

Yet, it is accurate to say that "no true Scotsman can flap his arms and fly to the moon", because any creature which could do that would not be human.  By definition he could not be a "true Scotsman".

So it is with the "pro-tax libertarian"- taxation is theft and is enforced by violating the ZAP, and the same goes for military "service".  Since the ZAP is the definition of "libertarian", no one can support those things and be a libertarian.  At least not a consistent one.

But, if someone claims "no real libertarian would use a public library", then you'd be correct in calling this a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.  There is no wrong in using what you are forced to pay for, as long as you don't advocate the continuation of the theft.  There will be a difference of opinion from person to person, and neither side is automatically eliminated from the category of "real libertarian".

Just because I apply a label to myself doesn't make the label accurate.  If I fit the definition, then I am what I say.  If I don't, then I am something other than what I claim to be.  And, that's fine.  People get confused over what words mean all the time.  It's not worth fighting over.  If you don't fit the definition, find where you do fit and correct what you call yourself.  But if you are not a Scotsman, don't be offended when someone points it out.


.

See how helpful The State is?

I ran across a story in the news a couple of days ago.  It said that "For the growing number of teenage girls who are incarcerated each year, detention may be the only time they get health care."

I see more than one disturbing thing in that sentence.

First, that the number of caged teenage girls is increasing.

Second, that State interference has made health care inaccessible to so many people.

And third, that some people try to justify the caging by pointing out that these girls need health care they aren't otherwise getting.

Even though the one girl mentioned in the story wasn't there directly as a consequence of the stupid and evil War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs, I'd be willing to bet money her crime is somehow tied to prohibition.  As is the vast majority of the abuse and other health issues discovered in the health screenings

End that idiotic policy, prohibition, and there would be a fraction of the current number of political prisoners held in cages in America in a few years- if not immediately.  And the rest of the crimes caused or exacerbated by prohibition would dwindle as well.  It would put reavers out of a job, which would be a good thing.  It would diminish the power of the judges.  It would help ALL of society.  Except those who drag society down- the drug warriors and their buddies on the violent supply side (with considerable overlap between the two) of the drug trade.  Those allies are a burden that society can't afford.  Ending prohibition would pull the rug out from under them.  Soon isn't soon enough.

.

Control stifles economic process

Control stifles economic process

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 26, 2012.)

In normal life, people generally see a monopoly as a bad thing. Lack of competition leads to poor services or products, inflated prices, and customer service gets put on the back burner because the money will come in regardless.

Business monopolies can only exist in collusion with government. Without the protectionism of regulation and red tape, competitors would quickly arise to satisfy the unhappy customers. Government stifles this natural process for the benefit of its corporate supporters and donors, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Government is the ultimate destructive monopoly. One whose "services" you can't even refuse. This results in the worst possible scenario.

Why pretend this particular monopoly is good?

A local church doesn't declare rulership over its neighborhood; instead the members mix and mingle in the community on equal footing with members of other churches whose "territories" overlap without borders. You don't tithe to your neighbor's church, you are not subject to its rules, nor are you entitled to any help from them. Those who wish to opt out of membership altogether are not assaulted or robbed for not going along, nor are they forced to leave the area.

A legitimate government would follow the same template: overlapping autonomous "associations" competing for "customers". The only universal rules that would apply everywhere would be based on Natural Law: don't attack others, and don't steal or damage other people's property. Everything else is a matter of opinion.

Overlapping governments could allow people to contract with them, pay the applicable taxes, abide by a set of rules, and get specified benefits in return. Your neighbors on each side might contract with different governments than you do. When signed up with one government you owe no taxes to the others and could get nothing from them without paying for it directly on a per use basis. Only those who wanted to finance a service would have to.

Those who choose to not join any government at all would still have to pay for any government service they wished to use, or they could choose a non-governmental provider, since a lack of a monopolistic government would allow a market in services to develop- including those things people wrongly assume can only be provided by government, such as roads and bike paths, security, education, water and sewer, and justice. Anyone who feels they do not need any particular service would not be forced to pay for it. Then the market would decide whose services were superior and which would die off.

Everyone wins except those who want to justify their coercion and force everyone into a "one size fits all" mold.


.

Does complexity necessitate theft and coercion?

Does a complex society necessarily sustain its complexity through theft and coercion or could you have an honest complex society?

I have read things that explain how complex societies "require" a State, due to their complexity.  That a monopoly of force is required to keep strangers from attacking and stealing.

The theory goes that simple societies, such as primitive hunter/gatherer societies, can get by without a State because of their small size (fewer individuals and less-complex connections between them), but once you get enough people in a society a State becomes "necessary" to keep people from attacking or robbing "strangers".

If that is true it seems more reason to revert (or advance) to simple societies again, rather than justification for The State and its requisite theft and coercion.

I hope it isn't true.  I like technology and don't think very many of the people I like would survive long (or well) without it.  Even though I also like primitive technology, too.

Of course, I can't really see how anointing some with special powers to rob and kill is better than letting the bad guys just take their chances with robbing or attacking people who might defend themselves.  A monopoly of force just empowers those most likely to abuse it.

And, as I have pointed out in the past, just because something might have been true in the distant past doesn't necessarily mean it is still true today.  Humans haven't changed, but their environment and their world has.  I think technology- guns, internet/communication, and so forth- changes the game in fundamental ways.  I think it puts people on a more even playing field and makes it harder for the bad guys to hide, once you remove the veil of legitimacy that the State seems to confer.

I would be perfectly willing to be a guinea pig and test the theory by living without a State keeping me or my enemies in line in a modern society.


.

I Hate Cops

I Hate Cops

(Originally published in the Libertarian Enterprise)

Let me just start by saying I hate cops. Yes, I admit it may be an irrational hatred, and I probably shouldn't hate them—and I certainly shouldn't admit it. If you are just going to scold me for that stop reading now and go do something else.

I am also going to make wholly appropriate comparisons of cops to Nazis. If that bothers you, or if you feel tempted to misapply "Godwin's Law" in order to try to shout me down, go away.

I am also going to tell you right now that I am happy every time I hear of a cop being killed. I don't care what the circumstances are. I hate the fact that innocent people also die in some of the same incidents. "Collateral damage" is NEVER justifiable. But fewer live cops is invariably a good thing. If you disagree, fine. Some people would disagree that the earth is not flat and doesn't rest on the back of a stack of giant turtles. And that is just how much sense your objection makes to me. So don't waste my time or yours, and stop reading now.

As I say, I hate cops. And I'm not too fond of copsuckers, either.

I would be perfectly willing to sign an agreement stating that I will exercise my right to never speak to another cop for the rest of my life (obviously, unless I attack or steal and someone else sends cops after me instead of dealing with me like a grown-up), and in exchange I can never, ever expect a cop to come to my aid in any way, in any situation. It would be a low price for such liberty. I'd sign such an agreement in half a heartbeat. The cops could go their way and I'd go mine. I'd never bother them in any way, as long as they didn't attack me.

I know that would disappoint all the sincere copsuckers who love to claim that libertarians are fond of "hating on cops" until someone attacks us, then we run crying and pissing ourselves, begging for the cops to save us. I've never seen it happen, and I suspect it is simply projection on the part of the emasculated copsuckers. So, yeah, I'd sign. I don't "need" cops. There is no situation so horrible that it can't be made much worse by adding a cop to the mix.

Sure, some of you may know cops who you believe are "good" people. And, as long as they aren't being a cop, maybe they are. I have known cops, and I have had long conversations with some, so don't whine that I just need to "sit down with a cop over a cup of coffee" so that I can understand them. That argument is so empty it is silly.

I suspect—no, I am certain that most Nazis were decent people to those they knew. Very few were genuine monsters. The uniform and the swastika was just a "job"—one that was socially acceptable and even honored in society. They probably felt good about their "service"—about protecting society from "anarchy". Most probably never personally killed an innocent person during their whole Nazi experience. And not many cops are Joe Arpaio, either.

Not all bad guys are cops, obviously, but few bad guys self-identify as openly as do the badged reavers. The guy standing in line behind you at the grocery store might be a member of a violent youth gang, but if he displays any outward signs of this affiliation, they are likely to be noticed (or correctly identified) only by other gang members. If all violent gang members wore a tag on their chest identifying them as such in plain language or hieroglyphs, people would treat them differently. People might be more likely to interpret more of their actions as a threat and might be quicker to employ self defense. Since the roster of gang members in any particular gang is so low, this wouldn't be a good survival tactic on their part.

No one could be blamed too harshly for shooting a self-identified gang member who made an aggressive move. Just like no one could have been blamed for shooting anyone wearing the swastika openly who makes a move that seems to be a credible threat to initiate force. Even a nice Nazi like Oskar Schindler would have been a legitimate target simply because of the swastika gang sign he wore (I'm assuming he wore it at least when he attended official functions).

Today, of all the violent gangs, only cops openly display gang signs for all to see and interpret. There is no chance of a mistaken identification. So far, they have suffered no real costs for this arrogance. This is because their gang is not only the largest and most violent, but because they have the support of those they consider their enemies (or their "crop")—"the public". Defend yourself from one of these gangsters and the hordes sent to avenge them is never-ending.

"Law enforcement" is an inexcusably evil "job". There is absolutely no decency in it. That wasn't true of "peace officers", but once they were replaced by "law enforcement officers" no good person could fill that "job". Once a cop enforces even one counterfeit "law"—any law attempting to regulate or control anything other than aggression or theft—he becomes an evil thug. There are no two ways about it.

I don't fear cops, except when forced to deal with one. Too many innocent people get murdered on the altar of "Officer Safety" for my comfort, and there's no telling what will set the twitchy, guilt-ridden vermin off. So, yes, any interaction with a potential murderer is upsetting, especially since I never choose to interact with them voluntarily.

My most recent encounter with a LEO happened while I was driving my dad's pickup (I have been without a functioning vehicle for nearly a year now) a few blocks—just across the state line so my sister could pick up an item from the grocery store. I was pulled over because the license plate light wasn't shining. No aggression or theft on my part. Nothing even "unsafe" about that at all—simply a control/tracking issue. Something cops are becoming increasingly obsessed over.

The parasite approached with exaggerated caution and warned me to put my hands where he could see them. Coward. If I were going to defend myself from him (in today's climate, such a reasonable action is suicidal), he would have already been shot. Or, I could have waited until he relaxed a little and turned to walk back to his ThugMobile, and then taken my time with aiming and all the technical details. Nope, it's all about setting the tone.

I couldn't find all the demanded "papers" in my dad's vehicle, and was warned that "in New Mexico it is required that ...". Funny, it seems that the cop isn't allowed to apply New Mexico "law" to cars registered in Texas, when the Texas "requirements" are different. But I neither know "the law", nor really care. My dad, however, later showed me the demanded piece of paper and it stated quite clearly what was "required"—and the Texico, New Mexico cop was wrong. Surprise, surprise.

I was let off, without even a warning ticket. However I find myself not wanting to travel anywhere. I am tired of being surrounded by these parasitic vermin and seeing their disgusting thieving beside the road every time I go anywhere—even if I am not the victim.

America IS a police state—and it is called "The United States of America". And I hate cops.

Deal with it.

.

The "Abolish the State button"

One of the standard arguments against liberty that always seems to crop up is that it is hopeless.  The State in some form or another is inevitable.  Liberty- anarchy- won't last long before another State grows out of the fertile soil; from the desires of weak-minded people to be led.

Why abolish The State if it'll just happen again?

OK, then.

I might as well never bathe or wash laundry again since I and my clothes will only get dirty and I'd have to wash again.

I might as well not eat since in a few hours I'll only get hungry once more.

Why bother even getting out of bed?  At the end of the day I'll just need sleep again.

It's really a very childish justification.

Sure, a new State might arise before too long, but not immediately, and it would take some time for it to become tyrannical again.  Is there no value to be found in the liberty the people would enjoy in the meantime?  I think there is.

I'm willing to hit the "Abolish the State button" even if it only turns out to be a "reset button".


.