What to DO? I feel the need to do something "important" for my personal liberty. I realize that the urge to "do something" is a dangerous thing. It leads people astray.
I'd do better to focus on my life and the things I can immediately affect, rather than concerning myself with what goons calling themselves "government" are doing to someone over a thousand miles away.
But I can't help caring. I like people- until certain individuals do things to make me dislike them. If I didn't like people I wouldn't care if they were being violated- or even if they were destroying their own lives by being the violators.
But, still, if I don't focus on my own life, who will? I am no one's responsibility but my own. I can't really affect the "laws" that the thugs who call themselves "government" impose- no matter how often I am told I can. Every time in the distant past I tried, I eventually "lost" and the advocates of "more rules" won. Yet, those rules only affect my life if I let them. Sure, I might get kidnapped, robbed, and caged for violating some of the "rules", but that is always a possibility no matter what you do. I'd rather deserve it.
So, I suppose I will keep "prepping" and learning skills, keep trying to sharpen my observational skills, keep meditating on liberty, and do the best I can in this world in which we exist. If you have other ideas I'd love to hear them.
.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Who should be ashamed?
Some people act as though I should be embarrassed or ashamed for expressing my support for liberty. Isn't that backwards?
I am embarrassed for people who I see blindly parroting support for The State, it's agents, and the various programs done in its name. I think "Don't they understand what they are saying? Don't they see what they are really supporting?"
No, most of them don't. And they don't want to. It would be inconvenient or even painful.
But, I realize I am in the minority. When it comes down to it, each of us is a minority of one. No one completely agrees with me on anything. And that's fine. It's what liberty is all about- you do your thing and I'll do mine- as long as neither of us attacks or steals or trespasses on private property.
That's not a stance I can be ashamed for promoting. I can't be embarrassed for doing the right thing. I can't act as though it is a horrible skeleton in my closet.
Nope. I'll shout it from the mountaintops. Or rooftops. Depending on where I find myself standing.
.
I am embarrassed for people who I see blindly parroting support for The State, it's agents, and the various programs done in its name. I think "Don't they understand what they are saying? Don't they see what they are really supporting?"
No, most of them don't. And they don't want to. It would be inconvenient or even painful.
But, I realize I am in the minority. When it comes down to it, each of us is a minority of one. No one completely agrees with me on anything. And that's fine. It's what liberty is all about- you do your thing and I'll do mine- as long as neither of us attacks or steals or trespasses on private property.
That's not a stance I can be ashamed for promoting. I can't be embarrassed for doing the right thing. I can't act as though it is a horrible skeleton in my closet.
Nope. I'll shout it from the mountaintops. Or rooftops. Depending on where I find myself standing.
.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Through the meat grinder
Those who believe in government might as well be feeding us all, and turning us all into, Soylent Green. Because the truth of the matter is that their actions grind up individuals to feed others.
Your life is worth only what it can do for "society". You are not worth defending if it means "allowing" you to have an effective gun, and you can be destroyed for daring to disobey. Your property is only yours until it can be taken and given to someone who is better connected, or who will "produce" more in the form of "taxes". And I could go on and on with examples.
The government extremists may claim innocence. They lie.
Each and every individual who believes in The State is showing a willingness to sacrifice YOU for the "common good". They are showing that they value "society" over any individual; not realizing that there are only individuals.
No, this isn't me being "collectivist" in my condemnation. If you support The State with words or deeds, then you share tangible guilt with the worst of the perpetrators. And by "deeds" I don't mean that you fork over money because there is a gun to your head- although we could debate how credible the threat actually is right now, and whether you could refuse to hand it over without any consequences. I'll just say you do what you think is best in that situation.
No, I'm condemning those who say "there oughta be a law", or who think more "government" is a solution for any real-world problem. Or even those who believe that there are some "necessary" things that only government can do. But, I used to believe some of the same things, so I share in the guilt. How many lives did my small bit of support for collectivist coercion ruin? I will never know, but I will spend my life making sure I never fall into that pit again. I want no more individuals put through the grinder on my behalf. Not even if it makes me look like a kook.
.
Your life is worth only what it can do for "society". You are not worth defending if it means "allowing" you to have an effective gun, and you can be destroyed for daring to disobey. Your property is only yours until it can be taken and given to someone who is better connected, or who will "produce" more in the form of "taxes". And I could go on and on with examples.
The government extremists may claim innocence. They lie.
Each and every individual who believes in The State is showing a willingness to sacrifice YOU for the "common good". They are showing that they value "society" over any individual; not realizing that there are only individuals.
No, this isn't me being "collectivist" in my condemnation. If you support The State with words or deeds, then you share tangible guilt with the worst of the perpetrators. And by "deeds" I don't mean that you fork over money because there is a gun to your head- although we could debate how credible the threat actually is right now, and whether you could refuse to hand it over without any consequences. I'll just say you do what you think is best in that situation.
No, I'm condemning those who say "there oughta be a law", or who think more "government" is a solution for any real-world problem. Or even those who believe that there are some "necessary" things that only government can do. But, I used to believe some of the same things, so I share in the guilt. How many lives did my small bit of support for collectivist coercion ruin? I will never know, but I will spend my life making sure I never fall into that pit again. I want no more individuals put through the grinder on my behalf. Not even if it makes me look like a kook.
.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Eustace vs. The Thieves
A few years ago- maybe more than I thought, now that I think about it- I read a book about a guy named Eustace Conway. The person who loaned me the book thought I would enjoy it, sensing a sort of kindred spirit I might share with Eustace. And I did enjoy it.
Now Eustace needs help. I'm not going to recap the whole thing- you can get some details here.
Make no mistake, when someone comes along and tells you that you are not "allowed" to use your own property as you see fit, you are being stolen from. Even if they "generously allow" you to keep the property. It's value to you is being diminished. Theft has occurred.
I am in no financial condition to help Eustace, but I will spread the word and might even write the thieves if I can compose a letter that doesn't become too honest. And if I can keep from referring to the thieves as thieves in such a letter. I did sign the petition- I doubt such things make any difference at all, though.
Look over the details of his current struggle and see if you think it's worth your time to lend a little support.
.
Now Eustace needs help. I'm not going to recap the whole thing- you can get some details here.
Make no mistake, when someone comes along and tells you that you are not "allowed" to use your own property as you see fit, you are being stolen from. Even if they "generously allow" you to keep the property. It's value to you is being diminished. Theft has occurred.
I am in no financial condition to help Eustace, but I will spread the word and might even write the thieves if I can compose a letter that doesn't become too honest. And if I can keep from referring to the thieves as thieves in such a letter. I did sign the petition- I doubt such things make any difference at all, though.
Look over the details of his current struggle and see if you think it's worth your time to lend a little support.
.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Rights don't change, even if details do
Rights don't change, even if details do
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 15, 2013)
Recently a lot of anti-liberty advocates have tried to justify their opposition to the Second Amendment with the claim that it is "outdated"; that back when the Bill of Rights was written, the founders couldn't have foreseen semi-automatic rifles (erroneously called "assault rifles"). That may or may not be true, but even then advances were being made, and these men weren't stupid. You can't convince me that scientists such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson weren't smart enough to see where the technology was leading, but let's pretend for just a moment that the supposition is correct.
It doesn't matter.
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 15, 2013)
Recently a lot of anti-liberty advocates have tried to justify their opposition to the Second Amendment with the claim that it is "outdated"; that back when the Bill of Rights was written, the founders couldn't have foreseen semi-automatic rifles (erroneously called "assault rifles"). That may or may not be true, but even then advances were being made, and these men weren't stupid. You can't convince me that scientists such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson weren't smart enough to see where the technology was leading, but let's pretend for just a moment that the supposition is correct.
It doesn't matter.
Do you enjoy First Amendment protection of your religion or denomination only if it existed in it's present form in the late Eighteenth Century?
Does your right to free speech only apply to your voice, or to the words you write with a quill pen or disseminate from an Eighteenth Century printing press? Are electronic communications not protected from government interference because those are forms of speech and "press" the Bill of Rights' writers hadn't experienced?
This is why it's important to remember that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give us rights". We retain all our rights whether or not they are respected by law. The Bill of Rights only lists a few of those things the government isn't empowered to do, and therefore can't do without committing serious crimes.
Let's say that you recognize there is a right to not be murdered by government- and pretend that instead of being included (along with the right to drive and everything else a free human can do without government permission) in the Ninth Amendment, it got its own mention: the Second-and-a-Half Amendment. Our lives are different today. Do we claim that the Right to Not Be Murdered only protects an Eighteenth Century life-style and forbids only the methods of murder that currently existed at the adoption of the amendment? No! The right exists, the details are irrelevant.
The Second Amendment makes it a serious crime for anyone acting on behalf of government to violate, in even the tiniest way, the right to own and to carry weaponry. It says nothing about what kinds of weapons it applies to, who may carry them, or where or in what way they may be carried, because it doesn't apply to the weapons or the people carrying them at all- it only prohibits all anti-gun "laws".
The "conversation" about guns is over. The anti-liberty advocates lost. Now their only hope is to abandon "conversation" and use aggressive force, ironically backed with guns, to attempt to violate your fundamental human rights.
.
Does your right to free speech only apply to your voice, or to the words you write with a quill pen or disseminate from an Eighteenth Century printing press? Are electronic communications not protected from government interference because those are forms of speech and "press" the Bill of Rights' writers hadn't experienced?
This is why it's important to remember that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give us rights". We retain all our rights whether or not they are respected by law. The Bill of Rights only lists a few of those things the government isn't empowered to do, and therefore can't do without committing serious crimes.
Let's say that you recognize there is a right to not be murdered by government- and pretend that instead of being included (along with the right to drive and everything else a free human can do without government permission) in the Ninth Amendment, it got its own mention: the Second-and-a-Half Amendment. Our lives are different today. Do we claim that the Right to Not Be Murdered only protects an Eighteenth Century life-style and forbids only the methods of murder that currently existed at the adoption of the amendment? No! The right exists, the details are irrelevant.
The Second Amendment makes it a serious crime for anyone acting on behalf of government to violate, in even the tiniest way, the right to own and to carry weaponry. It says nothing about what kinds of weapons it applies to, who may carry them, or where or in what way they may be carried, because it doesn't apply to the weapons or the people carrying them at all- it only prohibits all anti-gun "laws".
The "conversation" about guns is over. The anti-liberty advocates lost. Now their only hope is to abandon "conversation" and use aggressive force, ironically backed with guns, to attempt to violate your fundamental human rights.
.
Don't just accept- weigh it all.
I can be wrong. That realization keeps me from ever simply saying "this is how it is and I will never change my mind". Well, I might say it, but I don't really believe it.
Everything I believe has gone through the wringer. Usually more than once.
I have even questioned gun ownership several times in my life. "What if 'they' are right, and it's a bad idea for 'regular people' to own and to carry guns?" "What if wanting a gun is a sign of mental instability?" "What if the presence of a gun really does put the innocent in more danger?"
The questions lead to a couple of different actions. I begin to consider the possibilities in my own mind. Deeply and constantly. And, I read more about what other people have to say about the matter. Then I take that new information and incorporate it into the mix and think about it all some more.
I have changed my mind, or at least opened myself up to other possibilities, on some big questions in the past. It may happen again.
The thing is, each time I change my mind on something, I move toward more liberty- a stronger respect for individuals to live their lives as they see fit. I have never yet moved away from that toward more control by some over the lives of others.
Each time I go through this process I come to realize even more strongly that respecting liberty really is the best way to deal with other people. I realize that any "system" that ignores this, or fears liberty, is perverted. Even if I might have once found some value in what I now reject.
If this keeps up I'll wind up an anarchist. Oh, wait...
.
Everything I believe has gone through the wringer. Usually more than once.
I have even questioned gun ownership several times in my life. "What if 'they' are right, and it's a bad idea for 'regular people' to own and to carry guns?" "What if wanting a gun is a sign of mental instability?" "What if the presence of a gun really does put the innocent in more danger?"
The questions lead to a couple of different actions. I begin to consider the possibilities in my own mind. Deeply and constantly. And, I read more about what other people have to say about the matter. Then I take that new information and incorporate it into the mix and think about it all some more.
I have changed my mind, or at least opened myself up to other possibilities, on some big questions in the past. It may happen again.
The thing is, each time I change my mind on something, I move toward more liberty- a stronger respect for individuals to live their lives as they see fit. I have never yet moved away from that toward more control by some over the lives of others.
Each time I go through this process I come to realize even more strongly that respecting liberty really is the best way to deal with other people. I realize that any "system" that ignores this, or fears liberty, is perverted. Even if I might have once found some value in what I now reject.
If this keeps up I'll wind up an anarchist. Oh, wait...
.
Monday, March 18, 2013
I care nothing for nations...
You just never know where something to make you smile will crop up.
I was watching an episode of "Poirot" on Netflix. A bankster had murdered a few people, but when found out, was claiming he was too important to "the nation" to face punishment. Hercule Poirot said something to the effect of "Poirot is not concerned with nations. Poirot is concerned with private individuals." Awesome.
My thoughts exactly. "Nations" are nothing; individuals are everything. It's why every "law" imposed to protect any "nation" at the expense of the individual's liberty is evil. And it doesn't matter which "nation" claims the individual- murder by drone is wrong. Anti-gun "laws" are wrong. "National security"- which invariably comes by violating individual liberty- is wrong. Any "law" that seems to pretend that the "nation" is more important than any individual anywhere in the world is disgusting and wrong.
I care about "nations" to the identical extent they care about me.
.
I was watching an episode of "Poirot" on Netflix. A bankster had murdered a few people, but when found out, was claiming he was too important to "the nation" to face punishment. Hercule Poirot said something to the effect of "Poirot is not concerned with nations. Poirot is concerned with private individuals." Awesome.
My thoughts exactly. "Nations" are nothing; individuals are everything. It's why every "law" imposed to protect any "nation" at the expense of the individual's liberty is evil. And it doesn't matter which "nation" claims the individual- murder by drone is wrong. Anti-gun "laws" are wrong. "National security"- which invariably comes by violating individual liberty- is wrong. Any "law" that seems to pretend that the "nation" is more important than any individual anywhere in the world is disgusting and wrong.
I care about "nations" to the identical extent they care about me.
.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Truth vs. "truth"
In "Civil Disobedience" Henry David Thoreau said "The lawyer's truth is not the Truth..."
That is the heart of the matter, because The State, what most people call "government", is built entirely upon "lawyer truth" rather than the Truth.
A gigantic pyramid has been constructed on a squishy swamp with nothing to give it stability, except those desperately trying to prop it up and keep it from capsizing or sinking. But sink it will. And it will crush and drag down those who don't give it space.
The wise thing to do seems to be to see the Truth, laugh at "lawyer truth", and get as far away from the top-heavy edifice that so many look to with admiration even as it dooms them.
And keep respecting the Truth.
.
That is the heart of the matter, because The State, what most people call "government", is built entirely upon "lawyer truth" rather than the Truth.
A gigantic pyramid has been constructed on a squishy swamp with nothing to give it stability, except those desperately trying to prop it up and keep it from capsizing or sinking. But sink it will. And it will crush and drag down those who don't give it space.
The wise thing to do seems to be to see the Truth, laugh at "lawyer truth", and get as far away from the top-heavy edifice that so many look to with admiration even as it dooms them.
And keep respecting the Truth.
.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Grab it when you can
I have this habit as I walk along a trail (or a non-trail). I see a bit of dried inner bark, or a nice chunk of chert, and I pick it up, knowing it is something I may need later on down the trail. I don't worry that I might not need it later, or that I might find some later that is even better. I am glad for what I found and take advantage of the opportunity.
Why pass up something of value to you when you have the opportunity to pick it up? People who worry that the price of gold or silver might fall after they bought it seem to be doing this.
Don't worry that you have traded FRNs for it, and that the price might be lower tomorrow; be glad you now have it. If the price falls later, get more and be glad you got a good deal.
And, if you don't want to have silver or gold on hand, don't feel I am telling you that you must. It is a part of the survival strategy, not the whole picture. I prefer to cover as many bases as I can- you do what you want.
.
Why pass up something of value to you when you have the opportunity to pick it up? People who worry that the price of gold or silver might fall after they bought it seem to be doing this.
Don't worry that you have traded FRNs for it, and that the price might be lower tomorrow; be glad you now have it. If the price falls later, get more and be glad you got a good deal.
And, if you don't want to have silver or gold on hand, don't feel I am telling you that you must. It is a part of the survival strategy, not the whole picture. I prefer to cover as many bases as I can- you do what you want.
.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
A lesson in aggression and property rights
...taught* at the park.
A couple of days ago I took my daughter to the park. It was really too cold and windy, but she wanted to go, and since I am such a wonderful dad... but, never mind...
Anyway, as she was running around and playing I noticed a group of kids. There was one who was probably 9 or 10 years old, and three who were in their mid-teens or so. One of the older kids was the young one's older brother.
I had heard the older one threatening to break the younger one's bike, and generally being a bully- in front of his friends. The younger one was protesting and finally went back to sit on his bike, and I thought he was going to leave, when the older one came over and held him in place.
The older brother ("OB") began demanding to ride the younger brother's bike. The younger brother ("YB") was saying "no", and giving the reasons as "you broke my other one" and "I promised her that only I would ride it".
OB was getting pushier and pushier, and holding YB closer until he was holding his arms to his side, talking right into his ear, and still demanding to ride the bike. At this point I decided the line had been crossed and I'd had enough.
As I approached them (neither had noticed me yet as they were facing the other direction) YB began crying and holding his ear. OB just pulled him in tighter and was muttering something in his ear.
My adrenaline was flowing and I was either really angry or a little scared. Not sure which.
I stopped, without getting too close, and told OB that it was time to back off and "stop messing with" YB. He turned and looked at me.
He said "I'm not messing with him".
I said "Yes, you are. Now stop."
YB was really bawling by now and still holding his ear. He said OB hit him. OB denied doing so, and I couldn't really see exactly what was going on as I walked over to them, since OB was wrapped around YB so closely before I intervened.
OB finally admitted hitting YB and claimed it was accidental, and said that YB "over-exaggerates everything". I said that I had seen him getting rough and that was enough for me.
So OB changed tactics. He said that he only wanted to ride the bike. I told him that YB had told him "no", and that was that. OB said that he bought the bike for YB. I asked "Did you give it to him?" He said he had. So I told him that means the bike is YB's property and he doesn't have to let anyone else ride it if he doesn't want to. OB just kept complaining that he only wanted to ride it. I said "not unless he wants you to".
So OB turned to YB and gave him dirty looks and started in with "see what you started?" and that sort of thing. No personal responsibility for his own actions.
OB went back to his friends and YB followed at a safe distance. OB kept scolding and lecturing him, and crowding him, while still looking to see if I was watching. Finally YB said he was going home. OB asked why, and YB said "To get away from you".
I stayed at the park for quite a while, and OB and friends kept looking over at me, and later I heard them (I think) making fun of me. I suppose the bruised ego needed some help healing. Social standing needed to be recovered. I'm fine with that.
(* I should say "offered" since I doubt anything was learned)
.
A couple of days ago I took my daughter to the park. It was really too cold and windy, but she wanted to go, and since I am such a wonderful dad... but, never mind...
Anyway, as she was running around and playing I noticed a group of kids. There was one who was probably 9 or 10 years old, and three who were in their mid-teens or so. One of the older kids was the young one's older brother.
I had heard the older one threatening to break the younger one's bike, and generally being a bully- in front of his friends. The younger one was protesting and finally went back to sit on his bike, and I thought he was going to leave, when the older one came over and held him in place.
The older brother ("OB") began demanding to ride the younger brother's bike. The younger brother ("YB") was saying "no", and giving the reasons as "you broke my other one" and "I promised her that only I would ride it".
OB was getting pushier and pushier, and holding YB closer until he was holding his arms to his side, talking right into his ear, and still demanding to ride the bike. At this point I decided the line had been crossed and I'd had enough.
As I approached them (neither had noticed me yet as they were facing the other direction) YB began crying and holding his ear. OB just pulled him in tighter and was muttering something in his ear.
My adrenaline was flowing and I was either really angry or a little scared. Not sure which.
I stopped, without getting too close, and told OB that it was time to back off and "stop messing with" YB. He turned and looked at me.
He said "I'm not messing with him".
I said "Yes, you are. Now stop."
YB was really bawling by now and still holding his ear. He said OB hit him. OB denied doing so, and I couldn't really see exactly what was going on as I walked over to them, since OB was wrapped around YB so closely before I intervened.
OB finally admitted hitting YB and claimed it was accidental, and said that YB "over-exaggerates everything". I said that I had seen him getting rough and that was enough for me.
So OB changed tactics. He said that he only wanted to ride the bike. I told him that YB had told him "no", and that was that. OB said that he bought the bike for YB. I asked "Did you give it to him?" He said he had. So I told him that means the bike is YB's property and he doesn't have to let anyone else ride it if he doesn't want to. OB just kept complaining that he only wanted to ride it. I said "not unless he wants you to".
So OB turned to YB and gave him dirty looks and started in with "see what you started?" and that sort of thing. No personal responsibility for his own actions.
OB went back to his friends and YB followed at a safe distance. OB kept scolding and lecturing him, and crowding him, while still looking to see if I was watching. Finally YB said he was going home. OB asked why, and YB said "To get away from you".
I stayed at the park for quite a while, and OB and friends kept looking over at me, and later I heard them (I think) making fun of me. I suppose the bruised ego needed some help healing. Social standing needed to be recovered. I'm fine with that.
(* I should say "offered" since I doubt anything was learned)
.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Law tantrums from spoiled brat Bloomberg
LawGiver Bloomberg may (or may not) be smart, but if he has a high IQ then he is a high IQ idiot.
His tantrums over his anti-sugary drink edict have made him look even more ridiculous than all his other "law tantrums" combined- and that's saying a lot. He's nothing but a big, very spoiled, child. (I like Joel's take on it.)
Bloomie's long history of anti-gun "law tantrums" didn't bring me to this realization. I don't know why, since it seems so obvious to me now. In fact I see all the anti-gun advocates clearly now. They are all spoiled "grown" children- brats- with guns who don't want anyone else to have guns because they are scared. They'll keep throwing their law tantrums to try to make themselves feel better. They count on you not seeing them as they really are.
That's all any of these "laws" represent- the tantrums of spoiled brats who think they should run your life. I think it's past time for some "time outs" or spankings. But it is certainly NEVER time to act like these spoiled brats have any authority over your life.
.
His tantrums over his anti-sugary drink edict have made him look even more ridiculous than all his other "law tantrums" combined- and that's saying a lot. He's nothing but a big, very spoiled, child. (I like Joel's take on it.)
Bloomie's long history of anti-gun "law tantrums" didn't bring me to this realization. I don't know why, since it seems so obvious to me now. In fact I see all the anti-gun advocates clearly now. They are all spoiled "grown" children- brats- with guns who don't want anyone else to have guns because they are scared. They'll keep throwing their law tantrums to try to make themselves feel better. They count on you not seeing them as they really are.
That's all any of these "laws" represent- the tantrums of spoiled brats who think they should run your life. I think it's past time for some "time outs" or spankings. But it is certainly NEVER time to act like these spoiled brats have any authority over your life.
.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Don’t wait to stand up for rights
Don’t wait to stand up for rights
How many times have you thought to yourself that you wish others would "wake up" and realize how important some issue is? Probably as many times as I have.
Libertarian author L. Neil Smith points out that people are already "awake", otherwise nothing would get done. They are awake to the things they need to do to get through their day. Taking care of the kids; getting the job done, so that the paycheck will keep coming, so that the house payment gets made, the groceries get bought, and the electricity doesn't get shut off takes a lot of awareness. Often, it doesn't leave a lot of room for other things that don't seem as pressing.
People only think about philosophical issues when those issues get in the way of the things that matter to their day-to-day survival. By the time it matters, it is no longer "philosophical".
It is hard to get people to realize that The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is negatively impacting their lives when they are spoon fed only one side of the issue, almost subconsciously, every day of their life. Anti-drug "laws" are just fine... until your wife is dying of cancer and the doctor is too scared of the DEA to prescribe the level of pain relief she really needs. Until you get caught up in the consequences- mistakenly or not- it just isn't on your radar. It only affects "those people".
The same goes for so many other liberty-related issues.
Anti-gun "laws" don't matter as long as your heirloom single-shot 12 gauge isn't targeted. Anti-immigration "laws" are justified until your best friend- who just happens to have been born on the other side of some imaginary line- finds himself being arbitrarily kicked out of the country. Business regulations are good until your big idea dies before it gets off the ground because of all the red tape and licenses, or until your family business has to close because you can't navigate, or afford, all the "reasonable requirements" anymore. "Taxation" is obviously "necessary" until you lose everything because you can't prove you paid everything the IRS claims you owe.
These are disaster-level "awakening events".
Don't wait until the problem kicks you in the face to start standing up for liberty and noticing its enemies. Have the courage and conviction to stand up now, while it doesn't cost too much. Later may be too late.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 8, 2013)
Libertarian author L. Neil Smith points out that people are already "awake", otherwise nothing would get done. They are awake to the things they need to do to get through their day. Taking care of the kids; getting the job done, so that the paycheck will keep coming, so that the house payment gets made, the groceries get bought, and the electricity doesn't get shut off takes a lot of awareness. Often, it doesn't leave a lot of room for other things that don't seem as pressing.
People only think about philosophical issues when those issues get in the way of the things that matter to their day-to-day survival. By the time it matters, it is no longer "philosophical".
It is hard to get people to realize that The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is negatively impacting their lives when they are spoon fed only one side of the issue, almost subconsciously, every day of their life. Anti-drug "laws" are just fine... until your wife is dying of cancer and the doctor is too scared of the DEA to prescribe the level of pain relief she really needs. Until you get caught up in the consequences- mistakenly or not- it just isn't on your radar. It only affects "those people".
The same goes for so many other liberty-related issues.
Anti-gun "laws" don't matter as long as your heirloom single-shot 12 gauge isn't targeted. Anti-immigration "laws" are justified until your best friend- who just happens to have been born on the other side of some imaginary line- finds himself being arbitrarily kicked out of the country. Business regulations are good until your big idea dies before it gets off the ground because of all the red tape and licenses, or until your family business has to close because you can't navigate, or afford, all the "reasonable requirements" anymore. "Taxation" is obviously "necessary" until you lose everything because you can't prove you paid everything the IRS claims you owe.
These are disaster-level "awakening events".
Don't wait until the problem kicks you in the face to start standing up for liberty and noticing its enemies. Have the courage and conviction to stand up now, while it doesn't cost too much. Later may be too late.
.
Nutty for Liberty?
One of my fellow CNJ/PNT columnists wrote something about secession the other day.
He's against it- well, he thinks it's nutty, anyway. But he suggests all the secessionists be "given" "a fenced-in section of Arizona desert — free from prickly government intrusions." I don't think a section would be near enough room since I'd feel hemmed in by that limited amount of land even if I were alone- and how does he plan to acquire this land? Steal it or buy it from the rightful owner? But we'll pretend for a moment.
His vision for my future? Well, here's what he believes life would be like inside that fence:
"...unshackled from such Big-Brother meddling as public [sic] education [sic] bank deposit guarantees, Social Security, mail deliveries, band-width regulations, safe food, water and medicine, police and military protection [sic] criminal laws and the pesky justice [sic] system, highways, licensed doctors and nursing homes, air traffic controllers, firefighters..."
Sounds pretty good to me! I'd go for it! Who says only Big Brother can provide those things? If they are really needed and wanted, someone will provide them. If they are provided consensually, subject to market forces, they will be better. They certainly can't be any worse. Most of those "services", when provided by government monopoly, have just about been driven into the ground and have failed so thoroughly that only the constant threat of "the gun in the room", and the coercive prohibition on opting out to find a better way, keeps them hanging on.
He's against it- well, he thinks it's nutty, anyway. But he suggests all the secessionists be "given" "a fenced-in section of Arizona desert — free from prickly government intrusions." I don't think a section would be near enough room since I'd feel hemmed in by that limited amount of land even if I were alone- and how does he plan to acquire this land? Steal it or buy it from the rightful owner? But we'll pretend for a moment.
His vision for my future? Well, here's what he believes life would be like inside that fence:
"...unshackled from such Big-Brother meddling as public [sic] education [sic] bank deposit guarantees, Social Security, mail deliveries, band-width regulations, safe food, water and medicine, police and military protection [sic] criminal laws and the pesky justice [sic] system, highways, licensed doctors and nursing homes, air traffic controllers, firefighters..."
Sounds pretty good to me! I'd go for it! Who says only Big Brother can provide those things? If they are really needed and wanted, someone will provide them. If they are provided consensually, subject to market forces, they will be better. They certainly can't be any worse. Most of those "services", when provided by government monopoly, have just about been driven into the ground and have failed so thoroughly that only the constant threat of "the gun in the room", and the coercive prohibition on opting out to find a better way, keeps them hanging on.
And, I seriously doubt that such a free society (even if we left the fence standing) would permit "police and military protection" at all. Self defense and militia- of course. But not professional "Only Ones" who are paid through theft and allowed to initiate force and get away scot free.
He assumes that inside the "escape-proof, tumbleweed-lined fence would truly be a government-free, man-eat-dog, shoot-Big-Birds, survival-of-the-nuttiest nirvana" for folks like me. Sounds like a concentration camp, or one of those FEMA camps we hear about. Which brings up just about the only flaw.
The only problem with his suggestion is that there is no such thing as "a" secession advocate. Some want secession for anti-liberty purposes, or just because they happen to hate a particular person who calls himself "president", but would be fine with some other idiot occupying the same chair. Me? I've already seceded and laugh at the whole circus act. I need no "government" or any of its parts and pieces. It's believers may surround me, but they are the problem, not their imaginary "frienemy".
I'd be willing to move to Mars or any other survivable (with the right technology) planet (or whatever) for just the sort of chance he's denigrating and ridiculing. That's how sure I am that liberty really works in the real world we inhabit, and is vastly better than any other "system".
.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Sure, I'll help... LOL
All you Nigerian princes, widowed diplomat's wives, orphaned African bank president's adult children, dying heiresses, lottery winners, and US soldiers "serving" in Muslim countries who have multi-millions of dollars you desperately want to send me so that I can help you sneak it out of wherever... go ahead. Send it to me. You can trust me. My Paypal donation button is right over there on the side. Or you can change the money into Bitcoins and send it to me that way. Just attach a note saying who you are and how much my cut is, and give me a hint when you'll want yours.
I promise I will split it with you however you want. Later. After everything clears and I spend a little- never any of your cut- to make sure the money is spendable.
But you might as well stop sending me the emails because they go to my junk folder and I quickly delete them (yeah, I do read one occasionally for a laugh).
Just a little advice, though... To make your emails more believable (besides the whole thing about wanting to send strangers, who don't even appear as the email recipient, vast sums of money), you might consider learning how names "work" in this part of the world, and realize that I have never seen an actual "barrister" in my whole life.
Oh, and one more thing... I am not your "Dearly Beloved in God".
Ah, the joys of automation in the scamming arts.
.
I promise I will split it with you however you want. Later. After everything clears and I spend a little- never any of your cut- to make sure the money is spendable.
But you might as well stop sending me the emails because they go to my junk folder and I quickly delete them (yeah, I do read one occasionally for a laugh).
Just a little advice, though... To make your emails more believable (besides the whole thing about wanting to send strangers, who don't even appear as the email recipient, vast sums of money), you might consider learning how names "work" in this part of the world, and realize that I have never seen an actual "barrister" in my whole life.
Oh, and one more thing... I am not your "Dearly Beloved in God".
Ah, the joys of automation in the scamming arts.
.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Now THAT hurts!
Well, maybe just a little.
I am referring to someone saying this about me: "He’s just not quite as radical as I am."
Someone is more radical than me? Where have I gone wrong?
OK, so I'm mostly kidding. My goal in life isn't to be "radical", it is to be right. It's just that being right has become such a radical position. I just can't imagine anyone being "more radical" than I am. I suppose I still have a lot to learn.
.
I am referring to someone saying this about me: "He’s just not quite as radical as I am."
Someone is more radical than me? Where have I gone wrong?
OK, so I'm mostly kidding. My goal in life isn't to be "radical", it is to be right. It's just that being right has become such a radical position. I just can't imagine anyone being "more radical" than I am. I suppose I still have a lot to learn.
.
Saturday, March 09, 2013
Ground Zero!
Do you know what the above is? It's an environmental disaster- according to the feds. Mercury contamination! Sharp edges! Plastic! Yet, it wouldn't have happened if not for the feds and their silly meddling in the market.
As I was biking around town I happened to see this broken CFL (compact fluorescent light) beside the curb. No HAZMAT team was scurrying around trying to cordon off the area. I was in such horrific danger but no one came to rescue me. So I stopped to take a picture. Should I have sent this to MSNBC so they could send a team to interview the survivors? I neeeed to tell them how I feeeel about it.
I assume this is still there, if anyone wants to come save us. Or, I might use my mighty grabber tool and pick it up and illegally put it in a dumpster- if it's still there- next time I pass by.
.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
You wouldn't be wrong...
No one has a right to deprive you of life, liberty, or your pursuit of happiness- as long as your pursuit doesn't violate the identical rights of others.
You are not wrong if you kill a person who is attempting to murder you.
The same goes for anyone who is attempting to violate your liberty or pursuit of happiness. For instance: no one has a right to insist on their right to molest or license you as your "price" of being allowed to travel.
You are not wrong if you kill someone who is trying to violate your liberty in any way. The burden lies with the aggressor.
That doesn't mean that it is smart to do so when those who most commonly violate your liberty and pursuit of happiness belong to a huge gang, who are somehow permitted to decide that you are never to be allowed to defend yourself from members of their gang, and who have claimed they get to "arbitrate" disputes that involve themselves.
But you wouldn't be wrong.
Someone trying to kidnap you? You wouldn't be wrong to kill them for their attempt. Someone making up rules that violate your property rights? You wouldn't be wrong to kill them for their attempt. Someone trying to enforce some rule that violates your rightful liberty in some way? You wouldn't be wrong to kill them in trying to stop them.
I'm not saying you "must", I am saying you wouldn't be wrong. You will be killed by the gangbangers for defending yourself from their "brother" gangsters- that is just a given. That's why it probably isn't a smart thing to do in the current situation in which we find ourselves. But never make the mistake of thinking someone is wrong for killing anyone who is trying to violate their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. If I were on a jury and you were "on trial" for killing a liberty-violator, I wouldn't convict you no matter how much I personally didn't like you if I saw that you were only defending your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness from someone trying to violate you.
I would hope to be given the same respect, but I wouldn't expect it.
.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Better than that?
I'm better than that- I'm libertarian.
So why don't I always act better than that?
I am on the right side. There is no argument for The State or legitimized coercion and theft that can stand up against arguments for individual liberty. No, not one.
So why do I let myself get irritated by imbeciles who parrot the statist line? Their words are as ridiculous as anything ever uttered by the most brain-damaged cockatoo that ever managed to repeat human-like sounds. Yet, I let them get to me. How can I let that happen?
Because I am human, and I am flawed and subject to emotional responses. It's one reason I rarely write a blog post and immediately publish it. I like to be able to consider what I have written to see if I am being unreasonable and impulsive. That may disturb you even more- to know that most of what I have written has passed my review a few times before you ever read it.
I need to keep reminding myself that I am better than that. Liberty is better than that. And I am libertarian.
.
So why don't I always act better than that?
I am on the right side. There is no argument for The State or legitimized coercion and theft that can stand up against arguments for individual liberty. No, not one.
So why do I let myself get irritated by imbeciles who parrot the statist line? Their words are as ridiculous as anything ever uttered by the most brain-damaged cockatoo that ever managed to repeat human-like sounds. Yet, I let them get to me. How can I let that happen?
Because I am human, and I am flawed and subject to emotional responses. It's one reason I rarely write a blog post and immediately publish it. I like to be able to consider what I have written to see if I am being unreasonable and impulsive. That may disturb you even more- to know that most of what I have written has passed my review a few times before you ever read it.
I need to keep reminding myself that I am better than that. Liberty is better than that. And I am libertarian.
.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Selfishness not necessarily evil act
Selfishness not necessarily evil act
If you didn't own yourself, you couldn't give your life to someone else since it wouldn't be yours to give. That has implications in every aspect of life, from the interpersonal to the religious.
Just as no one else can claim to own your life, no one else has any claim on the products of your life without your explicit agreement. Being born in a place, and choosing to not leave, is not an explicit agreement, taxation apologists to the contrary. To be required to hand over the products of your life without your consent is slavery. To be forced to buy products or services you don't want is theft. Both violate self ownership.
Just as you can't belong to any individual, you can't belong to society. Your obligation to society is expressed by your obligation to not attack or steal from any individual. That's it. Everyone else has the identical obligation toward one another, and when it is violated, defensive actions are a proper response.
Self ownership means that it can be proper to act selfishly. It also means that if there are consequences from acting selfishly, you accept them rather than trying to use force against others to avoid the consequences you set in motion.
Selfishness is not the automatic evil that some would try to make you believe it is- as long as you don't violate anyone else or their property. Selfishness can lead you to donate to charity if it makes you feel good. Selfishness can convince you to help a friend so that you can strengthen that friendship bond. Selfishness can cause you to be a good neighbor so that others will be good neighbors to you. That is as it should be. Even the most apparently selfless person wouldn't be if there were no benefit- physical or spiritual- for them. Sacrificing others or their property to make yourself feel good is not selflessness.
Since you own your life, it is your responsibility to maintain that life. No one has an obligation to help you, although they may want to if you have been a good friend or neighbor. Or, if it makes them feel good about themselves.
Owning your life is an awesome responsibility. It is one you can't avoid by pretending it doesn't exist, nor by trying to delegate it to someone else. It is your responsibility whether you accept it or not.
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 1, 2013)
One of the self-evident tenets of libertarianism is that of self ownership. You own your life, and the products of your life.If you didn't own yourself, you couldn't give your life to someone else since it wouldn't be yours to give. That has implications in every aspect of life, from the interpersonal to the religious.
Just as no one else can claim to own your life, no one else has any claim on the products of your life without your explicit agreement. Being born in a place, and choosing to not leave, is not an explicit agreement, taxation apologists to the contrary. To be required to hand over the products of your life without your consent is slavery. To be forced to buy products or services you don't want is theft. Both violate self ownership.
Just as you can't belong to any individual, you can't belong to society. Your obligation to society is expressed by your obligation to not attack or steal from any individual. That's it. Everyone else has the identical obligation toward one another, and when it is violated, defensive actions are a proper response.
Self ownership means that it can be proper to act selfishly. It also means that if there are consequences from acting selfishly, you accept them rather than trying to use force against others to avoid the consequences you set in motion.
Selfishness is not the automatic evil that some would try to make you believe it is- as long as you don't violate anyone else or their property. Selfishness can lead you to donate to charity if it makes you feel good. Selfishness can convince you to help a friend so that you can strengthen that friendship bond. Selfishness can cause you to be a good neighbor so that others will be good neighbors to you. That is as it should be. Even the most apparently selfless person wouldn't be if there were no benefit- physical or spiritual- for them. Sacrificing others or their property to make yourself feel good is not selflessness.
Since you own your life, it is your responsibility to maintain that life. No one has an obligation to help you, although they may want to if you have been a good friend or neighbor. Or, if it makes them feel good about themselves.
Owning your life is an awesome responsibility. It is one you can't avoid by pretending it doesn't exist, nor by trying to delegate it to someone else. It is your responsibility whether you accept it or not.
.
Fans of "Joe"
What's your favorite justification for The State? Roads? "Drunk" driving? The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs? "National defense" [sic]?
Apparently, for a lot of "liberty-lovers", it is "borders" and "protecting us from illegal immigrants".
That's just sickening.
There is no such thing as an "illegal" person. Rights don't depend on where you were born. Governments can't "own" anyone. Private property lines are legitimate; "borders" violate those property lines and the property rights of the real owners.
How can a person claim to value liberty with one breath, and then hop on the Joe Arpaio fan bus with the next breath? The two are mutually exclusive. But tell that to those who have been sucked into his cult of personality.
Sorry, but if you think of some people as "less than" because of where they were born, or because of the counterfeit "laws" they violate, then you are NOT a supporter of liberty. At least not in that particular case. If you grasp at all the "statistics" that attempt to prove how horrible "illegal immigrants" are to the economy (ignoring the free market solution of getting rid of ALL welfare, minimum wage "laws", and violations of the right of association), or if you blame them all for the aggressive acts of a few, then you are advocating a bigger, stronger State, and rejecting liberty. Own it.
.
Apparently, for a lot of "liberty-lovers", it is "borders" and "protecting us from illegal immigrants".
That's just sickening.
There is no such thing as an "illegal" person. Rights don't depend on where you were born. Governments can't "own" anyone. Private property lines are legitimate; "borders" violate those property lines and the property rights of the real owners.
How can a person claim to value liberty with one breath, and then hop on the Joe Arpaio fan bus with the next breath? The two are mutually exclusive. But tell that to those who have been sucked into his cult of personality.
Sorry, but if you think of some people as "less than" because of where they were born, or because of the counterfeit "laws" they violate, then you are NOT a supporter of liberty. At least not in that particular case. If you grasp at all the "statistics" that attempt to prove how horrible "illegal immigrants" are to the economy (ignoring the free market solution of getting rid of ALL welfare, minimum wage "laws", and violations of the right of association), or if you blame them all for the aggressive acts of a few, then you are advocating a bigger, stronger State, and rejecting liberty. Own it.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)