Laws do not determine right and wrong

Laws do not determine right and wrong

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 5, 2013)

Should "wrong" be illegal? Telling lies is generally acknowledged to be wrong, so should it be illegal to tell your wife she doesn't look fat in that dress when she does? Should it be illegal to tell kids Santa Claus visits them?

When you criminalize everything you make it all subject to ridicule and increase the likelihood that your "laws" will be ignored.

When you do something wrong, there are often automatic consequences. No law or enforcement is necessary. If there are no consequences, then normally that means no one was harmed by your actions. That, or you are well-connected with those in power.

Should things that aren't even wrong, but are criminalized due to some people believing you are hurting yourself by engaging in them, be illegal?

Is not wearing a seat belt wrong? Of course not. It is certainly illegal. Just like driving without a "license" or going one mile-per-hour over some arbitrary speed limit.

Having and using marijuana isn't wrong, yet look how many lives have been destroyed on the altar of The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs for this non-offensive "offense".

Tattooing your body probably does more physical harm than smoking pot, yet it is legal. As it should be.

Sitting around watching TV certainly does lasting physical and mental harm, yet only the most enthusiastic Nanny State advocates would propose putting you in jail for wasting your life in front of the screen.

Carrying a gun without official permission isn't wrong. Robbing a bank, with a weapon or without one, is wrong. The fact that both are often looked upon by "the law" in the same light is ridiculous.

Everything was legal until someone wrote down words to forbid or regulate it. It isn't that certain things should be "made legal" again, it's that it was wrong to have ever made them "illegal" to begin with. Without "laws" to forbid them, physical attacks such as murder, kidnapping, and rape, and economic attacks like theft and fraud are still wrong. Just about everything else is none of your business, regardless of what the "law" says or what "majority opinion" may be. Even if something is wrong, it isn't the business of "the law" as long as no third party is harmed.

It is sad that people seem to have decided that anything they don't approve of, and consider "wrong", needs to be forbidden, and every prohibition must be enforced by people, with guns or offices, who are largely unaccountable.

.

"Laws" don't trump reality

Why do I have a tendency to ignore "laws"?  I am not a disagreeable person.  The problem is that I can't ignore reality in order to obey "laws".

Your "laws" can't override my knowledge and common sense. 

"Fire ban"?  It just rained a huge amount- everything is drenched.

"No guns"?  Do you really think murderers and robbers will obey that?

Sorry, but my need to look to someone as "authority" goes away as soon as that "authority" demands I do something that goes against what I know is the right thing to do.  I defer to (actual) authority, and I tend to ignore "authority".  You can tell the difference by the way they act.

Authority gives advice, helps you if you ask, and isn't stupid.  These are the leaders.

"Authority" makes demands, shoves you around, and is so stupid you wonder how they remember to breathe.  These are the Rulers.  You know, like Bloomie.

That means their "laws" make no sense, and obeying them makes even less.  Why do something that goes against reality?

.

Print a new generation Liberator!

Here, have a gun.  Or at least download the CAD file and save/share it.

The new Liberator pistol can serve the same purpose the original Liberator was intended to serve.  Funny how the tables have turned, though.  Now the tyrants most in fear of Liberators work for the same organization that was responsible for the originals.  The fear comes from knowing they are on the wrong side.


.

Bussjaeger's "Bargaining Position" is another great book

I just read Carl Bussjaeger's sequel to Net Assets, called Bargaining Position, and it is also a very fun book.

It is a sequel of sorts- set in the future from the perspective of Net Assets, but has none of the same characters.  In this book, people have moved into space and are living and working there.

I really enjoyed the (to me) realistic descriptions of life in the space habitats and of the liberty the people had.  There are still bad guys, but no melodramatic villains- just the sorts of bad guys you might experience in everyday life, but in a decidedly not everyday circumstance.

Go over and download the PDF (or some of his others) and send him $5 or so in exchange for a few hours of enjoyment.  Value for value.  It's like prostitution, but cheaper, and you won't catch anything this way.

And, thanks, Carl.  I wish your writing had made you rich so you'd keep writing more.

.

Prefer government to the mob? Why?

Over and over again, when discussing a free society with statists, they object that without "government" there would be freelance mobs forming that would still steal from and attack the innocent, and that these mobs would be worse than government- which is supposedly restrained by the laws.  To me it is a very weak, and bizarre, justification.  It's grasping at straws.

I don't doubt that freelance thugs would arise.  There will ALWAYS be bad guys.  The freelancers might even be more openly brutal than the tax parasites that infest society now.  (Although, I am beginning to doubt that, after seeing how many people are killed mistakenly (?) by reavers and other Registered Liberty Offenders every week.  Dead is dead- what do the dead care who it was that murdered them?)

Even so, I would prefer the honesty of a mob to the lie of government.

Plus, if I shoot a mob goon who is threatening or robbing me, few people would pretend I had done wrong.  If I shoot a puppetician or an IRS mugger I can count on being tried, convicted, and executed by a brainwashed "majority", and probably in reality by the perforated government employee's gang.

Even if the dead freelance mobster's associates came after me, I could keep shooting them.  I could hire people to help me shoot them, or even invite people with a grudge against the mob to shoot with me.  They'd probably jump at the opportunity.  No one would pretend I didn't have the absolute right to do so.  Well, no one but the mobsters, themselves.

With government it is different due to the fact that even people who recognize how corrupt, evil, and broken the "system" is have been brainwashed into believing there is some sort of nebulous "legitimacy" in the theft and aggression committed by government goons.  So not only do you have to face The State's wrath if you justifiably kill some of its employees in self defense or defense of property (really, the same thing), but you have to face condemnation and betrayal by your neighbors who support the bad guys.

If the same sorts of people will always find some gang to join so that they can attack and steal, why not remove the veil of legitimacy and make them at least be open about what they really are? Since cops and criminals have virtually identical personality traits, why let any of them practice their craft openly?  Good people still outnumber the bad- we don't need them.  I don't need them.

Mob or government... why pretend a difference, beyond indoctrinated perception, exists?  Cast off your indoctrination and see things as they really are.

.

.

Exercising the libertarian brain cells

There is a conversation taking place between me and another person over on my Dispatches from Libertopia blog.

It is a very typical "libertarian vs statist" conversation.

He thinks I am simplistic and I think he is blindly Utopian about The State (and buying trouble for himself).

I try to keep in mind that this is really how a lot of statists think: they are scared or suspicious.  Of other people, of liberty, and- seemingly- of themselves if no one is looking over their shoulder.  They believe in the worst case scenario when it comes to liberty, but think The State can work out just fine "if we get the right people running things" or "if we hold those in government accountable".  They will grasp at any straw to keep believing government can be "good", and will desperately search out any potential problem they can imagine to keep from just being free.

But the comments over the years really are like a broken record.  It's the same old things again and again- even in the same thread.  Nothing new.

But I shouldn't complain.  It's good exercise to get these same old questions again and again, and be able to deal with them without getting frustrated, because these are the same objections to liberty you'll face in "the real world" if anyone knows you don't buy the statist propaganda.  And if you can't answer them there, are you sure you know what you claim to know?  And the person asking the questions today has no way of knowing you have answered the same thing innumerable times in the past.

.

Your brain- use it.

"Conservatives" and "progressives" are both blind.

Some things should not be "conserved" and some things should not be "progressed" beyond.

You've got to use your brain instead of digging in your heels and hanging on to whatever bizarre notion sets up housekeeping in your head.  If you are trying to justify theft or aggression for your cause, you lose.  Go back to "Start".  Try again.

.

Heroes and ZAP

It is never heroic to violate the ZAP, so if that's something you do, you are not a hero.

.

Double standard makes government its own counterargument

Double standard makes government its own counterargument

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 29, 2013.)

Civilization depends on unwavering respect for property rights, and the recognition of the right to defend property. Without the ability to own property, use it as you see fit, and defend it from those who wish to steal or destroy its value, we would still be living a nomadic stone age life. I don't know about you, but I enjoy some of the trappings of civilization, though, and I don't appreciate those who are tirelessly working to roll them back.

If you can't feel confident about your ability to hold on to what is yours and use it to your advantage, there is no reason to make any improvements or put any effort into anything beyond basic survival.

Long ago, some people decided the best way to protect those property rights, and other rights, was to establish governments.

Obviously they were very mistaken. The biggest violator of property rights is- and has for a long time been- various iterations of government.

Double standards never work. If it is wrong for me to take your property, to tell you what you can do with your land, or to demand you hand over your money, then it is wrong for everyone, and for any group, to do.

If you prevent a person from using their own property as they wish, even if you say you will pay what you believe is a fair price for your violation, you have stolen a portion of that property's value. Even if you "generously allow" them to retain possession- in exchange for a yearly ransom, of course.

The act of "eminent domain" is a growing threat to property in America. It was never right, and has grown beyond what any of its early advocates ever imagined. It is now used to benefit businesses, supposedly in "the public interest". If you want to use another person's property you either need to reach a mutually agreeable arrangement with them, or you must find an alternative. Asking someone else- a government, for example- to steal the property on your behalf is not ethical, even if it is said to be "legal". So sorry if doing the right thing is inconvenient or costly.

All government control of private property is a violation of property rights. Eminent domain, being outright theft of real estate, is just the worst example. Taxation, property codes, licenses and permits do the same thing, in less obvious ways.

If government was instituted to protect rights, then by violating property rights government invalidates its own existence. It becomes its own best counterargument.

.

"No guns (for you!)"

If you attempt to disarm anyone who is not threatening you right now- through "laws", words, policies, or whatever else you might use, you are the bad guy.

Go ahead and do it- however you seek to justify it.  You may even have the right in some instances.  But you are never "good" for doing so.

.

My Bicycle Set-up (updated)

Thomas Knapp was talking about his Bicycle-Based Transportation System, so I decided I should show and tell, also.  I use the bike a lot around town, to save gas.  And just because.  It's not like I have to ever worry about rain.  LOL.  Only wind and blowing dirt.

I took the pictures at the park so you could see a grassy scene instead of dirt.

Here's my whole system:

Below is just the bike.  Years ago I bought it for $10 at a yard sale.  It was red, and I painted it black.  I added a rack over the rear wheel and screwed on a small ammo box for hauling small stuff that needs to stay dry or to not blow away.  It carries mail a lot of the time.  You can see my rear-view mirrors (one of which has broken off a few times after the bike has been blown over by the wind), water bottle holder, black painted ammo box (with cunning stickers), and the leather pouch (an old purse with no strap) on the side.  You can see that the seat is one of those hornless seats that is MUCH more comfortable:

The trailer, which cost me around $100 (4 or 5 years ago, and has probably paid for itself in saved gas several times over) is pretty handy for hauling a kid or even groceries or a big box from the post office.  I replaced the orange "safety flag" on the trailer with a Time's Up flag.  I don't always haul the trailer along since it acts like a sail and catches our excessive winds to give me lots more drag.  But when I don't have it along, I often wish I did for one reason or another:

Next, see the bike from other side.  The can beside/below the ammo box is an old coffee can (painted black and lined with foam rubber) for holding those big 44oz fountain Dr Peppers:

From the rear.  You can see the red reflector I attached to the back of the ammo box:

This is my folding "grabber" attached to the fork.  I use it to pick up litter at the park, or wherever I find it.

I also have a headlight.  Yeah, it uses a candle:

Here's a better view of the pouch.  It holds tools for bike repairs, and plastic grocery bags for the trash I pick up.  I need to replace the Gadsden stickers on the ammo can:

Here's a close-up of the coffee can.  I also use it for hauling little odds and ends, since I don't actually get drinks that often.  Today it held some cedar bark tinder I collected at the park:

Both trailer tires and my bike's front tire have "No Mor Flats" innertubes.  The rear bike tire has one of those horrible innertubes filled with air, that leaks at the worst time (thanks to "goat head stickers"!).

I'm not a sports person, or a "serious" rider.  It's just another way to get from here to there and back again.  If you see me, don't run me down, please.

UPDATE 7-11-2016:

The bike trailer's canvas has been weathering badly for a couple of years, and my daughter is too big to ride in it anyway, so I turned the trailer into a cargo carrier.

.

Flaunt your stupidity for all the world to marvel upon

Sometimes it is helpful for me to see signs like this:

Because I know you can't read it, it says "No guns allowed beyond this point" and "No knives allowed beyond this point".

Without signs to remind me that, yes, there really are people so incredibly stupid that they believe a sign will prevent a bad guy who wants to hurt people from doing so, I might forget and believe people are as rational as most of the people I actually interact with.

Silly me.

.

Another failed justification for cops

The existence of cops doesn't stop bad behavior, or even "crime", no matter what copsuckers would like you to believe.  Sure, if there is a cop watching you right now, you probably won't steal that candy bar, or shoot that little old lady, or rape that holstein.  Right now.  But if you are the kind of person inclined to such acts, you will just delay until that cop is no longer looking.

And no matter how all-seeing the surveillance state becomes, there will always be dark corners.  Because I promise you The Watchers don't want all their acts witnessed, either.  And people will always find ways to defeat the eyes and ears of the State- at least when they need privacy.

The "best" that can be said about the existence of cops with regards to "crime" is that it might drive it underground.  Maybe.  But, if it does so, is that even a good thing?

Is it better that people plot in private?  Introduce self-medications into their own bloodstream in private?  Familiarize themselves with their "forbidden" gun in private?

I may be odd, but I don't think it is better.  I think driving things underground has negative consequences that exposure to the light of day would avoid.  I think being forced to do all the "illegal", but non-coercive, things in secret means a great deal of added harm to innocent individuals- even those who aren't doing any of those things.

Once again, the justification for having Registered Liberty Offenders prowl the streets fails.


.

"First responders"?

How Orwellian.

How is it that the LAST guys on the scene have come to be called "first responders"?

And, they even make certain they are the last ones on the scene by setting up a "perimeter" to keep anyone else away.

If an incident involves you, and you respond, you are your own "first responder", and you are less likely to harm innocent people by your response than are the Johnny-Come-Latelies who show up after the smoke has cleared.  If you don't (or are unable to) respond, then maybe your neighbor is your first responder.  Until the Last Responders chase him away (or kidnap him, or shoot him if he looks alert and armed- they hate that).

But, just keep chanting it: War is Peace.  Freedom is Slavery.  America is NOT a police state.  First responders.  Don't you feel better already?

.

Can you communicate with a statist?

How can you communicate with someone who is so deeply mired in statist thinking that you are hardly speaking the same language?

Recently I got into a discussion with a guy whose vocabulary revolved around words like "system", "punishment", "enforcement", and so forth; he couldn't even think beyond those concepts. To him, everyone needs to be forced into "a system", and directed.  If government isn't doing it, it isn't getting done.  To him, individuals are nothing more than atoms of the collective.  And yet, this person would probably get really angry if it were pointed out that he is a collectivist.

I do not need to be coerced into being a part of a "system", nor do I want anyone else to be forced in, either.  If it is a good system and suits my wishes and needs at the moment, I will join willingly- as long as I can opt out at as soon as my wishes and needs are no longer being met.

And, I don't need anyone directing me.  Nor do I want anyone else to be directed.  I'll gladly take my chances with other free individuals.

It comes down to this: "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." ~ Robert A. Heinlein

And that common thread of history, the question that never changes: shall man control his own life or shall others control him?*

I don't want or need to be controlled or "directed" and I have no need of that for anyone else.  I know this from real world experience.  No amount of statist meme parroting can change reality, nor can it make me fear other people enough to want to have them "governed" on my behalf or "for their own good".

That means there is a gulf between me and the statist that there may be no way to bridge.  We just see the world too differently- he with suspicion and fear, and me with "trust, but verify".

_

*I wanted to use this quote, but I have been told it isn't "real".  “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." ~ Thomas Jefferson.
Well, "real" or not, someone said it, because there it is.  And it's true no matter who said it or didn't say it.

.

True freedom carries no demands

True freedom carries no demands

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 22, 2013- with a headline more bizarrely assigned than usual.)

How much freedom do you have? How much freedom do you need?

You are free to vote for people to take money from your neighbors on your behalf.

You are free to vote to prevent your neighbors from using their property as they see fit.

You are free to support violent early morning home invasions in the name of protecting people from plant leaves and unprescribed chemicals. For their own good, and "for the children", of course.

You are free to travel where you want, as long as you pay for permission to own a vehicle, and pay for permission to drive it, and pay "taxes" when you buy your fuel, which then permits you to travel- as long as you drive below some arbitrary speed, fasten a restraint across yourself, and follow rules designed- not for safety- but to provide an opportunity to milk you for money. By going along with all this you are also said to be consenting to random acts of roadside theft and violence against your person and property by employees of The State.

And that's just if you travel in your own (?) vehicle. To travel by air, and increasingly by other forms of mass transportation, you must agree to be sexually violated and otherwise treated like a prisoner.

You are free to earn money, as long as you can prove you have government permission to have a job in America. Or, if you wish to operate your own business, as long as you pay multiple fees for permission and agree to be a "tax" collector and steal from your customers. Then you must follow reams of rules, controlling how you are permitted to operate your business, and what private property violations you are required to submit to.

You are free to watch entertainment as long as the subject matter isn't too offensive to some individuals.

You are free to eat whatever you want as long as someone hasn't declared your food choice to be too unhealthy for you. And as long as the person you purchase it from has jumped through all the hoops and barriers and agrees to steal the proper amount from you to send in as tribute to those who claim to rule.

You are free to marry, unless you seek government sanction for your union, and then you are subject to more fees and restrictions.

But, really, how much freedom do you need?

Actually, the more rules imposed, the freer you become. When you realize how much your freedom threatens those who wish to control you, the less you'll worry about complying with their demands.

.

Yellow Ribbons

I just watched "The Hunger Games" again.  It made me realize there is little if any difference between their "74th annual Hunger Games" and the latest government war.  And little if any difference between the human sacrifice of the "tributes" and the "troops".  It's pointless government extremism in both cases.

It gave me an idea.  Someone should print up some of those yellow ribbon magnets with the caption "Support Our Tributes" on it.  Or, maybe just "Support Human Sacrifice" if you don't want to leave any doubts to the meaning.

If you use this idea and make a billion dollars, I'd appreciate a cut.

.

Deadly flailing

I remember a scene from some movie (that I can't remember more of) where a "rescuer" rushes into a crowd of people who were supposedly on his side and under some threat from someone from "the other side", and the "rescuer"- with a battle cry- starts gunning down everyone who dumbly believed he was there to kill the opposition.

Why does this come to mind after hearing about how the government enforcers go after "suspects" in America now?

Whether or not innocent people are killed in the "enforcement", there is a credible threat, and a violation of liberty, property rights, and decency.  In such an environment I would understand who is the bigger threat, and I would not help that threat against others in any way.

.

Education is too important

Have a look at "public" [sic] schooling. Is it the best way to educate a human?


 

Doing wrong to prevent wrong.

Two wrongs don't make a right.  And it is not right to do something wrong to prevent someone else from doing something wrong.  That is a huge foundational delusion behind the myth of government.

The local Registered Liberty Offenders are trying to work out a plan for stealing cars.  Their only concern is whether to wait until a person has been convicted of violating their "laws" or to steal the car upon accusation.

Stealing cars, using any justification, shows a total lack of ethics or morality.

So, a dissenter commented: "As opposed to them killing someone with their car? What is wrong with you? Sheesh!!!!!"

No one is talking about a person who has killed (or even injured) anyone, or damaged private property in some way.  In that case there would be a victim and there would be restitution owed.  Nope.  What is being proposed is stealing property for the benefit of The State, which is claiming victimhood.  Impossible.

This is the lie behind "gun control" [sic].  "Your gun is a credible danger so you must give it up, even if you haven't harmed anyone with it."  Even if someone is handling a gun in a dangerous way, I would be wrong to take it from them and keep it.  I could take it, unload it, and give it back.  If they use it to rob me or shoot me they have chosen to be in debt to me and then I can take their gun as payment.  But not before.  And, again, in this case there would be an individual victim, not some nebulous "society" you claim has been harmed.

Do I "like" "drunk driving"?  No.  But I like the police state and all its apparatus even less.  And I understand how "drunk driving" has been redefined into absurdity- to the point where people with nothing whatsoever, which could impair their driving ability in any way, in their system, have been charged with some form of "drunk driving"... just because.

-

The same goes for imposing a police state and illegally/unethically/immorally locking down a city and invading homes to catch a suspect.  Every cop who entered any property without the explicit permission of the owner/renter deserved to be shot dead.  Immediately.  Good thing for those stormtroopers that the "people" there gave up their responsibility and guns long ago, and are cheering fans of Big Brother.  Makes me furious to even think about.

.