Considering conspiracies

Chem trails, fluoridation, vaccines, GMOs- these are some of the conspiracy theories that I am highly doubtful about.

I'm not saying that those in government/corporations wouldn't harm people for their own evil purposes- just that I'm not convinced that these are examples of that being put into action.

I don't denigrate those who pursue the exposure of their particular conspiracy- it's just that I wonder if more important things are being ignored while focusing on these.

I can't go through life terrified that everything I eat, breathe, drink, or do is killing me, and trying desperately to avoid exposure to all those things.  That doesn't mean the theories aren't true, of course.  Life is a fatal condition, and people do seem to be living longer today than they did 100 years ago before any of those things were around.  Maybe that trend will reverse because of all the conspiracy issues listed above.  Maybe that trend will reverse due more to socialized medicine.

If the evidence is ever sufficient to convince me... well... I'm not sure what I'd do because those things are things I am not in a position to do anything about other than complain or get completely stress-ridden over.  And I don't need to stress myself out over things I am not convinced are real, or are a real problem.  There are too many other things I can do something about.

.

Crime- the solution is ready and waiting

I was just reading something I found on Rational Review News (you do get their daily email digest, right?):

"Within reason, you can have any violent crime rate you want by manipulating the gun laws. Absolute gun bans result in violent crime rates as bad as Venezuela. Or worse.
Semi-absolute gun bans with large quantities of forbidden weapons coming in from the outside results in Chicago."

That is so true.  And you and I have witnessed that fact play out in the real world over and over again.  The anti-liberty bigots have also witnessed the same thing.  Which means "safety" can't be the goal of the anti-liberty bigots who keep advocating anti-gun "laws".

I want to see people all around me with a gun on their hip.  Not "law enforcement"; people.  This is because I prefer civilization to whatever passes for "civilization" now.  An armed society is a polite society- and I have been a part of polite societies before and would like to see them spread over the globe so that police states become the exception rather than the rule.

Anyone who doesn't want you armed- right now, wherever you are- is saying he doesn't trust you, doesn't like you, and doesn't care if you are harmed.  That's sick.

.

Control freaks show their nature

Control freaks feel the need to keep nagging and "reminding", and then- if given the power- forcing.

I think part of that comes from insecurity.  They fear they can't get things done themselves, so they seek to force others to do things on their behalf.  Instead of developing skills and talents, they try to co-opt the skills and talents of others to their own ends.  They see others as existing only to satisfy their whims.  Then they consider this behavioral problem to be their particular "skill".

Perhaps they suffer from delusions that if they don't act like that, the things they want to happen won't get done.

The problem is, if what you want done has to be accomplished by coercing other people, it probably shouldn't be done at all.

Sadly, those who nag and coerce will probably never learn that the right way to get people pulling with you is to convince them to join voluntarily and then lead them by your example.  If your goal can't get enough voluntary support, then it should probably die on the vine.

.

Radical change needed in America

Radical change needed in America

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 12, 2013.)

Imagine a few years into the future- you are returning home from a family visit over the Thanksgiving holiday when a deer runs into the road in front of you. You slam on the brakes, but it is too late. You hit the deer and lose control of your car which runs off the road, flips, and in spite of your seat belt, you die in the crash.

Your worries are over. For your survivors, the tragedy is just beginning.

In this hypothetical future, the growth of government has continued on its present course. Do you think your death was punishment enough? The State doesn't think so.

After all the applicable estate taxes have been charged, and automatically deducted from your bank accounts and forfeited property, the real frenzy begins.

Your family gets a bill from the police who wrote up the accident report, along with surcharges for "emotional distress" due to seeing your tattered remains, and an "ObamaCare" fine on behalf of all "first responders" involved because they were exposed to potentially hazardous fumes and bodily fluids.

Your survivors are ticketed for the deer you killed without a license, and your family's hunting weapon- one black powder rifle per family being the only thing still legal- is confiscated for "poaching".

Your car's "black box" indicates you were over the speed limit by a tiny amount, so your estate is charged a fine for your speeding, as well, plus the fine is doubled because a couple of years ago when self-driving cars were made available, at great expense, you chose to forgo that new technology and keep doing the driving.

The EPA charges your loved ones the standard fee for the gasoline spill clean-up, even though your tank was almost empty and nothing spilled. Also, since there was a small fire, a fine for polluting the air is levied, as well as a fine for the bio-hazard created as your life-blood seeped into the soil, and one for littering due to all the car parts scattered around the crash site.

It gets worse. The autopsy confirms the presence of tryptophan, due to the recent turkey dinner, so your life insurance won't pay out- it's the law. You were "driving under the influence". Did you really think the zero tolerance and ever-tightening DWI laws would remain where they stood in 2013?

You may think this scenario is far-fetched. "It can't happen here." It is already happening. Americans have a choice: radically change the path that is being followed, or "stay the course" to see where it leads.

.

"The Theorist"

Here's a film called "The Theorist" that was made for the "Operation Paul Revere" film contest (infowars.com).

If you have been reading this blog for long you probably know I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, and this is probably the very first time you have ever seen me mention anything connected with Alex Jones- anywhere.  The guy just isn't to my taste.  However, even a blind pig finds a nut sometimes, so I don't automatically write anyone off.

So I watched the film.

I am SO not the guy in the film.  I am not nearly as tweaked.  I don't imagine my lone voice will change the world- not sure I'd want that responsibility if I thought it could.  My life doesn't revolve around my blog and writings- except when I have nothing else to do (which, I admit, is more often than I'd like).  My lack of a "real job" is due more to my parenting responsibilities than to anything else- and I don't fight about it.  Or much of anything (you do NOT want to really get me mad, though).

Still, the film is interesting and made me think.  I agree with some of the points brought up in this fictional account of the life of this one very vocal conspiracy theorist.  I'd rather not end up like him, but I don't think the risk of that happening would be enough to make me shut up.  I'm just too stubborn.

So, give it a watch and see what you think.

 

The REAL mother of invention

Happy Mother's Day!

Don't forget to be appreciative to the mother of all human achievement: Liberty.

It is said "necessity is the mother of invention", but without the liberty to actually solve the problems, nothing can ever be accomplished, no matter how necessary it might be.

Remember that those who would violate your liberty are doing their best to force a return to the Dark Ages (at least for everyone but themselves).

Resist and refuse to cooperate.  Honor your other mother.

.

"Who are you? Why are you shooting at me?"

If someone is shooting at you, it's not your responsibility or obligation to figure out why they are shooting, or who they are- you just need to shoot back.  Killing them is a good thing.  Unless you are the one trespassing or stealing.  But you wouldn't be doing that, would you?

Anyone wanting to prevent that by "law" or in any other way is NOT a friend of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.  They are a murderous monster.  Treat them as such.

.

Doing the opposite of what's called for- "the government way"

If I am wandering lost in a raging blizzard, and I get cold, does it make any sense to douse myself all over with ice water?  Judging by the actions of government employees the world over, but especially in DC, the answer must be "yes!"

Assuming that the "official version" of 9/11 is the true story, Atta and his fellow suicide murderers would be very pleased with the results of their "sacrifice".  The US government was goaded into doing the bulk of the terrorists' work for them.  The terrorists' plan succeeded more thoroughly than they could have hoped in their wildest delusions.

Their act was like opening a supercooled Coke and watching it freeze solid in fractions of a second.  The US police state was beyond ready to "react", and was waiting for any excuse to crystallize.  Any act would have sufficed, but that one was just too convenient.

The same could be said of the Boston Marathon bombers, whoever they might really be.  Their terrorism was like a pinprick compared to the samurai sword stab wound immediately administered by the "law enforcers" who responded.  I'm not saying the bombs weren't evil and didn't destroy many lives, I am saying that history will show the subsequent acts of State to be even more harmful in the long run.

The same goes for any and all of the mass-murdering "gun free zone" shooters.  They are only a minor catalyst, and the State is the one who does the majority of the resulting harm, by proposing and enacting anti-gun "laws" which only disarm those inclined to obey "laws".

The right way to respond to terrorist attacks is to increase liberty- you know, that principle the terrorists supposedly hate so badly they are willing to kill and die to oppose.  The right way to respond to massacres is to make it easier for more guns to be in the right hands and stop encouraging "gun free" killing zones.

The State always does the opposite of what should be done in these cases, which makes me think that prevention is NOT the goal.

.

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.

.