If an act qualifies as theft, or aggression, or is wrong in some other way, I don't care who is doing it or what excuse they use- it is wrong. Your wishes won't change that.
To pretend I only object when the evil act is committed by a government employee is completely missing the point and is in denial of what I care about.
To twist yourself around and upside down to try to appease the thief/aggressor/bad guy- because you feel he is "necessary" in some way- destroys your credibility.
Just sayin'
.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Using right tool for the job is key
Using right tool for the job is key
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 17, 2013)
Humans have always created tools to give them more power than would be available with bare hands.
Hammers, can openers, computers, and guns are tools.
The State- what most people mean when they talk about "the government"- is also a tool.
Any tool can be used in ways that could be said to be good and bad. However, only one tool- The State- can't be adequately aimed and can never be used without creating victims.
Some people compare my desire for the end of The State with the demands of anti-gun advocates for the end of privately owned firearms. Just as with guns, they claim it isn't the tool, but how the tool is used. That would be true if it were possible to use the tool of The State without harming the innocent.
Imagine being forced to pay for a neighbor's gun and ammunition, even though you know he is dangerous and plans to harm innocent people. His right to own a gun does not negate your right to keep your own money or your right to defend yourself from him when he endangers life, liberty, and property. Nor does the human right to own and to carry a gun include a right to use that gun to harm innocent people in any way.
Similarly, your right to organize doesn't negate anyone else's right to live peacefully however they see fit.
The State is a singular kind of tool. Even when "good" results from its use, it comes at the cost of some amount of bad. That bad is an inherent part of the tool- one that can't be eliminated without abandoning the tool. If you don't have coercion and theft, then you have a voluntary arrangement, and it is, by definition, not The State.
You might like some of the "services" The State provides you, but do you stop to think about the true cost? People who don't want those services are forced to pay for them regardless. This is like using a gun that fires two bullets simultaneously every time the trigger is pulled- one at the target, and another in a random direction from an unseen barrel.
The State probably isn't going away soon, so if you love it and want to keep it around, don't worry. You'll never lose your security blanket because of me. Only you can free yourself by growing to accept your responsibilities, giving up theft and coercion, and working out your conflicts using the economic method rather than the political method.
The tool of The State is dangerous and obsolete. You can do better.
Humans have always created tools to give them more power than would be available with bare hands.
Hammers, can openers, computers, and guns are tools.
The State- what most people mean when they talk about "the government"- is also a tool.
Any tool can be used in ways that could be said to be good and bad. However, only one tool- The State- can't be adequately aimed and can never be used without creating victims.
Some people compare my desire for the end of The State with the demands of anti-gun advocates for the end of privately owned firearms. Just as with guns, they claim it isn't the tool, but how the tool is used. That would be true if it were possible to use the tool of The State without harming the innocent.
Imagine being forced to pay for a neighbor's gun and ammunition, even though you know he is dangerous and plans to harm innocent people. His right to own a gun does not negate your right to keep your own money or your right to defend yourself from him when he endangers life, liberty, and property. Nor does the human right to own and to carry a gun include a right to use that gun to harm innocent people in any way.
Similarly, your right to organize doesn't negate anyone else's right to live peacefully however they see fit.
The State is a singular kind of tool. Even when "good" results from its use, it comes at the cost of some amount of bad. That bad is an inherent part of the tool- one that can't be eliminated without abandoning the tool. If you don't have coercion and theft, then you have a voluntary arrangement, and it is, by definition, not The State.
You might like some of the "services" The State provides you, but do you stop to think about the true cost? People who don't want those services are forced to pay for them regardless. This is like using a gun that fires two bullets simultaneously every time the trigger is pulled- one at the target, and another in a random direction from an unseen barrel.
The State probably isn't going away soon, so if you love it and want to keep it around, don't worry. You'll never lose your security blanket because of me. Only you can free yourself by growing to accept your responsibilities, giving up theft and coercion, and working out your conflicts using the economic method rather than the political method.
The tool of The State is dangerous and obsolete. You can do better.
.
Mutually exclusive things shoved into one tight box...
From a letter to the editor in Guns magazine, December 2011:
Sorry, but two of those things are irreconcilable with the others. You can't be "conservative"* or "pro-military" and be "pro-Constitution", much less "honest", "pro-American", and "pro-Second Amendment". Not in the real world, anyway.
Of course, it is telling that the only reason the guy wrote in the first place was to complain that in one of the articles about a "shoot", the author had been "PC" by referring to "he/she"- the letter-writer doubted any women were even in attendance, much less actually shooting. But, according to the reply by the author, women were there and were shooting. So, there!
The troglodytes are still out there. Waving (federal) flags and trying to stay blind and deaf.
(*Reminds me of something funny I read last week. It said that "progressives" were always pushing to mess things up, and "conservatives" were afraid to fix the messes. LOL!)
.
"...a publication whose content has historically been conservative, honest, pro-American, pro-military, pro-Constitution, and pro-Second Amendment."
Sorry, but two of those things are irreconcilable with the others. You can't be "conservative"* or "pro-military" and be "pro-Constitution", much less "honest", "pro-American", and "pro-Second Amendment". Not in the real world, anyway.
Of course, it is telling that the only reason the guy wrote in the first place was to complain that in one of the articles about a "shoot", the author had been "PC" by referring to "he/she"- the letter-writer doubted any women were even in attendance, much less actually shooting. But, according to the reply by the author, women were there and were shooting. So, there!
The troglodytes are still out there. Waving (federal) flags and trying to stay blind and deaf.
-
(*Reminds me of something funny I read last week. It said that "progressives" were always pushing to mess things up, and "conservatives" were afraid to fix the messes. LOL!)
.
Random Acts of Anarchy 2013
It's my birthday- one of those Big Ones. Yuck.
But you can still help me celebrate it in a good way. Go out and commit random acts of beneficial anarchy.
Or, if you feel the overwhelming need to send me a birthday present... here are some suggestions.
.
But you can still help me celebrate it in a good way. Go out and commit random acts of beneficial anarchy.
Or, if you feel the overwhelming need to send me a birthday present... here are some suggestions.
.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Anti-liberty bigots
I love that term: "anti-liberty bigot". It drives them mad.
Yet it is completely honest and applicable.
The most enjoyable use of the term is against those smug anti-gun advocates. They go berserk when you point out their true nature.
"Bigotry" is an automatic bias against something. It doesn't only apply to "race", gender, sexuality, or things of that nature. The "progressives" would like for you to be ignorant of that fact, though.
"Liberty" is the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate any other person's equal and identical rights. Liberty isn't a "pick and choose" buffet- each bit is an inseparable part of the whole.
Anti-liberty bigots can't stand being called out for their bigotry or for the fact that they are enemies of liberty- which basically means they are advocates of slavery.
People who advocate for anti-gun "laws" have an automatic bias against liberty. Often in more ways than just that one.
If you believe a private business owner should have his right of association violated by force (from government employees) if he chooses to refuse to do business with certain people based upon their "race" or sexual orientation, then you are an anti-liberty bigot. The business owner is also some kind of bigot, but his flaws don't justify yours. He is within his rights (as long as he doesn't attack or steal), and he will suffer at least the loss of that potential customer's money. If I find out about his bigotry, he will also lose my business. Why would I want to trade with someone who refuses to trade with people who are not initiating force or stealing, but who just happen to be something (?) he hates?
You have every right to be an anti-liberty bigot or any other kind of bigot. And everyone has the right to defend themselves from you if you take it beyond bigotry and put it into action by initiating force or theft- or make a credible threat to do so. (Don't think you'll escape consequences by advocating having someone else do so on your behalf.) And I have the right to refuse to associate with you in any way, even if you stop short of aggression.
.
Yet it is completely honest and applicable.
The most enjoyable use of the term is against those smug anti-gun advocates. They go berserk when you point out their true nature.
"Bigotry" is an automatic bias against something. It doesn't only apply to "race", gender, sexuality, or things of that nature. The "progressives" would like for you to be ignorant of that fact, though.
"Liberty" is the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate any other person's equal and identical rights. Liberty isn't a "pick and choose" buffet- each bit is an inseparable part of the whole.
Anti-liberty bigots can't stand being called out for their bigotry or for the fact that they are enemies of liberty- which basically means they are advocates of slavery.
People who advocate for anti-gun "laws" have an automatic bias against liberty. Often in more ways than just that one.
If you believe a private business owner should have his right of association violated by force (from government employees) if he chooses to refuse to do business with certain people based upon their "race" or sexual orientation, then you are an anti-liberty bigot. The business owner is also some kind of bigot, but his flaws don't justify yours. He is within his rights (as long as he doesn't attack or steal), and he will suffer at least the loss of that potential customer's money. If I find out about his bigotry, he will also lose my business. Why would I want to trade with someone who refuses to trade with people who are not initiating force or stealing, but who just happen to be something (?) he hates?
You have every right to be an anti-liberty bigot or any other kind of bigot. And everyone has the right to defend themselves from you if you take it beyond bigotry and put it into action by initiating force or theft- or make a credible threat to do so. (Don't think you'll escape consequences by advocating having someone else do so on your behalf.) And I have the right to refuse to associate with you in any way, even if you stop short of aggression.
.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
"USA! USA!"
I have long made a distinction between "The United States of America" (or "The United States"/"US"/"USA", as it is called) and America.
America is the land, the people, the traditions, the ideals enshrined imperfectly in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. America was to be an experiment in rightful liberty. America is the potential good.
The United States is the "government"- the thugs, the politicians, the counterfeit laws, the militaristic Empire, the corruption, the "official secrets"- that currently infests America. The United States is everything evil that is now being done in the name of "America".
Some people angrily tell me I am wrong. They say the two are the same thing.
OK. So if they really are the same thing, let's just call it The United States of The United States, then. Leave America out of it.
I still believe that The United States is the greatest threat America has ever faced, and in fact, America may have already been defeated. Or driven underground. All the things that make America America have been criminalized and portrayed as "potential terrorism". America is being shoved aside to make room for The USA. There is no room for liberty in The USA.
But, whether as "America", or something else, somewhere else, the ideals will survive. Because right is stronger than evil. Because Liberty is always right. Because individuals are real, and coercive collectives are nothing but a gang of evil individuals, no matter what they call themselves.
.
America is the land, the people, the traditions, the ideals enshrined imperfectly in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. America was to be an experiment in rightful liberty. America is the potential good.
The United States is the "government"- the thugs, the politicians, the counterfeit laws, the militaristic Empire, the corruption, the "official secrets"- that currently infests America. The United States is everything evil that is now being done in the name of "America".
Some people angrily tell me I am wrong. They say the two are the same thing.
OK. So if they really are the same thing, let's just call it The United States of The United States, then. Leave America out of it.
I still believe that The United States is the greatest threat America has ever faced, and in fact, America may have already been defeated. Or driven underground. All the things that make America America have been criminalized and portrayed as "potential terrorism". America is being shoved aside to make room for The USA. There is no room for liberty in The USA.
But, whether as "America", or something else, somewhere else, the ideals will survive. Because right is stronger than evil. Because Liberty is always right. Because individuals are real, and coercive collectives are nothing but a gang of evil individuals, no matter what they call themselves.
-
From now on if I use the term "USA" I will mean "Universal Surveillance of Americans". At least that's an accurate representation of the reality..
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Edward Snowden- "oath breaker" or not?
What is your opinion of Edward Snowden "breaking his oath" and spilling the beans about the NSA spying on you?
My opinion: an oath made to a criminal thug (one who violates life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) or a gang of criminal thugs can't be in any way binding. Especially when they don't keep their oaths.
If you swore an oath in good faith, but you later discover that the guys you had sworn your oath to had broken their oaths and were requiring you to do the same, under the guise of keeping your oath to them, you are released from any obligation.
To me, an oath made to someone who breaks their part of the oath first is null and void. You may choose to keep your end of the bargain even after they have broken it on their end, but you are not obligated to do so.
As soon as Edward Snowden discovered that those he was working for/with were oathbreakers of the most dangerous kind, he was released from any obligation his oath may have created.
Confused military tools to the contrary.
In my opinion.
.
My opinion: an oath made to a criminal thug (one who violates life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) or a gang of criminal thugs can't be in any way binding. Especially when they don't keep their oaths.
If you swore an oath in good faith, but you later discover that the guys you had sworn your oath to had broken their oaths and were requiring you to do the same, under the guise of keeping your oath to them, you are released from any obligation.
To me, an oath made to someone who breaks their part of the oath first is null and void. You may choose to keep your end of the bargain even after they have broken it on their end, but you are not obligated to do so.
As soon as Edward Snowden discovered that those he was working for/with were oathbreakers of the most dangerous kind, he was released from any obligation his oath may have created.
Confused military tools to the contrary.
In my opinion.
.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Edward Snowden. A hero too late?
Why does it seem necessary to have been "an evil twit who changed your ways" to be a hero? Why can't someone be a hero without first doing evil?
Bradley Manning is a hero. Now. But first he was a part of the problem. He signed on with the military and worked with, and for, the bad guys he later exposed.
Edward Snowden is a hero. Now. But first he was part of the problem, working with and for the CIA and NSA, trampling your liberty with everything he did as part of his "job" and with every paycheck he cashed.
Why can't people have a foundation of Principle that lets them recognize they shouldn't be doing certain evil things before they start doing them?
My real heroes are those who didn't need to join forces with the bad guys first to see what needed to be done- and what should never be done. But those are the ones who rarely get noticed and almost never get hailed as the heroes they truly are.
I will say this, though: seeing the chorus of semi-hominid scum that is screaming "treason!" over Edward's whistleblowing, I know he's on the right side. I hope he outlives his detractors.
I will say this, though: seeing the chorus of semi-hominid scum that is screaming "treason!" over Edward's whistleblowing, I know he's on the right side. I hope he outlives his detractors.
.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Ignoramus on display- Constitutional oath version
Isn't the military in danger by allowing people this dumb in the "club"? Isn't it a danger to America because of them?
I mean, not only does he seem to have no reading comprehension skills at all, but he seriously seems to believe that taking an oath to the Constitution means he is obligated by that oath to violate every single thing in that Constitution. And, somehow, he equates obeying his oath with doing the bidding of the very puppeticians who fear those who would take the oath seriously. He doesn't understand that he is taking the side of those he pretends to oppose! Ignorance this monumental is stunning and frightening!
Sorry, but since the Snowden whistle-blower case became news I have seen example after example of "military patriots" spouting similar nonsense.
Are the flying drones really a greater threat than the meat drones?
.
I mean, not only does he seem to have no reading comprehension skills at all, but he seriously seems to believe that taking an oath to the Constitution means he is obligated by that oath to violate every single thing in that Constitution. And, somehow, he equates obeying his oath with doing the bidding of the very puppeticians who fear those who would take the oath seriously. He doesn't understand that he is taking the side of those he pretends to oppose! Ignorance this monumental is stunning and frightening!
Sorry, but since the Snowden whistle-blower case became news I have seen example after example of "military patriots" spouting similar nonsense.
Are the flying drones really a greater threat than the meat drones?
.
Idiots vs Chewbacca
Idiots. They are all around us.
I mention killing in self defense and one of them exposes himself right there in public.
I mention killing in self defense and one of them exposes himself right there in public.
"Waaah!"
Yeah, and I'm sure you were also taught that it is good to support "your government"- even to the point of going to war (and killing) if you are told to do so. You were probably taught it is "bad" to "cheat on your taxes". And that "the policeman is your friend". You were taught a lot of crap that you should have tossed aside by now.
Yeah, and I'm sure you were also taught that it is good to support "your government"- even to the point of going to war (and killing) if you are told to do so. You were probably taught it is "bad" to "cheat on your taxes". And that "the policeman is your friend". You were taught a lot of crap that you should have tossed aside by now.
Instead you expose yourself as someone unable to rise above your indoctrination. All over a story about the nasty and stupid TSA agents who tried to steal "Chewbacca's" light saber cane.
Oh, there was much more to the conversation that added up to my assessment of this guy. I will say that my estimation of Peter Mayhew's chances of being a nice guy just went up considerably due to this imbecilic person saying he met him once and he wasn't very nice. Seeing how this guy acts, how could a decent person be very nice toward him?
Oh, there was much more to the conversation that added up to my assessment of this guy. I will say that my estimation of Peter Mayhew's chances of being a nice guy just went up considerably due to this imbecilic person saying he met him once and he wasn't very nice. Seeing how this guy acts, how could a decent person be very nice toward him?
.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Government supremacy belief is wrong
Government supremacy belief is wrong
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 10, 2013)
I find it very sad that whenever someone wants to do something, the first question most people ask is whether government allows it, requires a license, or forbids it. That's truly tragic.
I take it as a sign that people have been successfully indoctrinated into the socialistic belief of government supremacy. That's a perversion of how life really is, of course. The reality is that the individual is supreme, and every other social construct, real or imaginary, is built- from the bottom up, not from the top down- of individuals.
Without sovereign individuals there is no society, nor any other organization of any sort.
Instead of wondering whether an act is permitted, it would be better to ask ourselves whether it violates anyone else in any way. Does it initiate force? Does it take or damage anyone else's private property in any way? Does it violate another's right to choose how to use his property, and under what conditions?
Those are the questions that matter. Everything else is a dead end.
Of course, those who act as government also need to be asking the same questions of themselves before they do anything. They have the additional burden of making sure that their acts are permitted by the documents that were supposedly adopted for no other reason than to protect everyone else from government's actions.
The funny thing is that things are topsy-turvy now. Regular people like you and me are expected to alter our behavior according to the whims of people who don't refrain from any abusive act, even though those acts are in direct violation of the only justification that can be imagined for the job they hold.
If I don't have the authority to do something- myself, individually, on my own- there is no way I can delegate that authority to someone else, or to any group of individuals. The same goes for you. And if you and I can't delegate authority we don't have, then when those things are done anyway, those acts are wrong, no matter who you are or what excuse you use.
This isn't a pointless philosophical debate. On May 5, 2013 President Obama warned The Ohio State University graduates he was addressing to reject the warnings people like me are passing along, and to simply trust government. My motivation is that I trust you to run your own life, and I want you to understand liberty and experience it in all its glory. What might his motivation be?
If you can be fooled into asking the wrong questions, the answers don't matter.
I find it very sad that whenever someone wants to do something, the first question most people ask is whether government allows it, requires a license, or forbids it. That's truly tragic.
I take it as a sign that people have been successfully indoctrinated into the socialistic belief of government supremacy. That's a perversion of how life really is, of course. The reality is that the individual is supreme, and every other social construct, real or imaginary, is built- from the bottom up, not from the top down- of individuals.
Without sovereign individuals there is no society, nor any other organization of any sort.
Instead of wondering whether an act is permitted, it would be better to ask ourselves whether it violates anyone else in any way. Does it initiate force? Does it take or damage anyone else's private property in any way? Does it violate another's right to choose how to use his property, and under what conditions?
Those are the questions that matter. Everything else is a dead end.
Of course, those who act as government also need to be asking the same questions of themselves before they do anything. They have the additional burden of making sure that their acts are permitted by the documents that were supposedly adopted for no other reason than to protect everyone else from government's actions.
The funny thing is that things are topsy-turvy now. Regular people like you and me are expected to alter our behavior according to the whims of people who don't refrain from any abusive act, even though those acts are in direct violation of the only justification that can be imagined for the job they hold.
If I don't have the authority to do something- myself, individually, on my own- there is no way I can delegate that authority to someone else, or to any group of individuals. The same goes for you. And if you and I can't delegate authority we don't have, then when those things are done anyway, those acts are wrong, no matter who you are or what excuse you use.
This isn't a pointless philosophical debate. On May 5, 2013 President Obama warned The Ohio State University graduates he was addressing to reject the warnings people like me are passing along, and to simply trust government. My motivation is that I trust you to run your own life, and I want you to understand liberty and experience it in all its glory. What might his motivation be?
If you can be fooled into asking the wrong questions, the answers don't matter.
.
The two kinds of laws
There are only two kinds of written "law": unnecessary and harmful.
Laws that align with Natural Law are unnecessary. You don't "need" a law saying that murder is forbidden and punishable before you have the right to defend a life with force. Rape, theft, kidnapping, fraud, "assault", and every other violation of life, liberty, and property/"the pursuit of happiness" are the same. No law is needed. Decent people know those things are wrong and will carry consequences; bad people don't care.
Every other "law" is harmful, because they are counterfeit. Counterfeit "laws", by their very nature, are wrong. Evil. By their very existence they "legalize" all the violations of Natural Law listed above- at least by some "elite individuals". Of course, they employ euphemisms to attempt to hide the truth of the acts. Theft is called "taxation", murder is called "war" or "capital punishment", kidnapping is called "arrest", rape is called "airport security", and... well, the list goes on and on- covering just about anything done in the name of "governing".
I don't need any laws. Neither do you.
.
Laws that align with Natural Law are unnecessary. You don't "need" a law saying that murder is forbidden and punishable before you have the right to defend a life with force. Rape, theft, kidnapping, fraud, "assault", and every other violation of life, liberty, and property/"the pursuit of happiness" are the same. No law is needed. Decent people know those things are wrong and will carry consequences; bad people don't care.
Every other "law" is harmful, because they are counterfeit. Counterfeit "laws", by their very nature, are wrong. Evil. By their very existence they "legalize" all the violations of Natural Law listed above- at least by some "elite individuals". Of course, they employ euphemisms to attempt to hide the truth of the acts. Theft is called "taxation", murder is called "war" or "capital punishment", kidnapping is called "arrest", rape is called "airport security", and... well, the list goes on and on- covering just about anything done in the name of "governing".
I don't need any laws. Neither do you.
.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Criminalizing reality- wisdom from an unlikely source
"So think about this. What happens when you make something illegal that is just a natural part of the world? You may as well make flies illegal. Or sweat. Or Monday morning."
Profound quote, isn't it. Where would you think I came across that one?
In a kids movie: The Tale of Despereaux. I recommend it.
I like to imagine that little things like this slip into a kid's brain. And maybe, just maybe, sit in there like a seed. Sprouting and taking root. I know my daughter surprises me all the time with things she remembers that I thought she didn't even notice.
And I hope those kids then realize that there are two kinds of things that are a "natural part of the world". There is the coercive and the consensual.
Aggression and theft- unfortunately- both seem to be a "natural part of the world", but a part that should be opposed. Or at least not engaged in. Laws that make them illegal don't make them go away, though. They only give written justification for defending yourself from those who engage in them- justification that is not necessary.
Then there are the things like Cannabis, self defense, defense of property, consensual sex, etc., that are not valid targets for "law". They are a "natural part of the world" and any "law" against them is pointless, at best, and destructive in the majority of cases. Trying to make them illegal is like the example of making flies, sweat, or Monday mornings illegal. You'll never get rid of those things; you'll hurt a lot of innocent people in the process and make yourself look stupid and irrelevant.
But control freaks and those who throw law tantrums and legal hissy fits are slow learners- if they can learn at all.
.
Sunday, June 09, 2013
NSA spying. Yawn...
Isn't it cute how people pretend to be "shocked!" that the NSA is spying on them?
Seems like a perfectly logical outcome of "government" to me.
Seriously, what other outcome could you possibly imagine when you allow thieves to gather together in the light of day and not only survive, but thrive? Doesn't this just encourage them to keep pushing the envelope to see what else they can get away with? Of course it does.
Allowing a group of thugs to coordinate and operate under the name "government" is a losing game. When you justify their gang in any way, however carefully, you have already lost. You may not know it yet, but you will either learn or you will die ignorant.
I hope that if you are a supporter of any of the "wars on everything" or "law enforcement" of any sort, you will learn something from this. If not, keep crouching and licking those blood-dripping hands.
.
Seems like a perfectly logical outcome of "government" to me.
Seriously, what other outcome could you possibly imagine when you allow thieves to gather together in the light of day and not only survive, but thrive? Doesn't this just encourage them to keep pushing the envelope to see what else they can get away with? Of course it does.
Allowing a group of thugs to coordinate and operate under the name "government" is a losing game. When you justify their gang in any way, however carefully, you have already lost. You may not know it yet, but you will either learn or you will die ignorant.
I hope that if you are a supporter of any of the "wars on everything" or "law enforcement" of any sort, you will learn something from this. If not, keep crouching and licking those blood-dripping hands.
.
Saturday, June 08, 2013
My daughter dabbles in communism
Sometimes as I walk around the park I find change. Usually fifty cents or so.
Yesterday my daughter was wandering around with me and saw me find a penny. She wanted it, so I handed it to her. I told her she could find money, too. So we walked around looking some more and I found another penny.
This gave her an idea. She told me that any money I found I should give to her, and she'd give me any money she found. I told her I thought it was better to just keep what we each found but she didn't like that idea.
The next penny I saw, I casually "pointed" at it with my toe without looking at it, and she "found it" and picked it up. I said "Yay! Now give it to me." She refused even though I reminded her of our deal. A minute later she found a quarter and a penny together. I told her she was still supposed to be giving me the money she found.
She didn't want to. So I said I'd just keep what I found, too.
Then I started finding more change than she was. Quickly she had a "new" idea: She would keep everything she found and I would give her everything I found.
I said I still thought it was better if we just each kept what we found. So, she complained a little at first, but that's what we ended up doing.
She wound up with 29 cents and I had 30.
Communism appeals to 5 year-olds (and those with similar intellects) until the reality of it hits home. Then it doesn't seem quite as appealing anymore.
.
Yesterday my daughter was wandering around with me and saw me find a penny. She wanted it, so I handed it to her. I told her she could find money, too. So we walked around looking some more and I found another penny.
This gave her an idea. She told me that any money I found I should give to her, and she'd give me any money she found. I told her I thought it was better to just keep what we each found but she didn't like that idea.
The next penny I saw, I casually "pointed" at it with my toe without looking at it, and she "found it" and picked it up. I said "Yay! Now give it to me." She refused even though I reminded her of our deal. A minute later she found a quarter and a penny together. I told her she was still supposed to be giving me the money she found.
She didn't want to. So I said I'd just keep what I found, too.
Then I started finding more change than she was. Quickly she had a "new" idea: She would keep everything she found and I would give her everything I found.
I said I still thought it was better if we just each kept what we found. So, she complained a little at first, but that's what we ended up doing.
She wound up with 29 cents and I had 30.
Communism appeals to 5 year-olds (and those with similar intellects) until the reality of it hits home. Then it doesn't seem quite as appealing anymore.
.
Thursday, June 06, 2013
Liberty Lines, June 6, 2013- Farwell's new "Drug Dog"
(Published in the Farwell TX / Texico NM State Line Tribune, 6-6-2013)
We can debate the merits of the failed War on Politically Incorrect Drugs 'til the cows come home, but my observation is that prohibition- for "the common good", "for the children", or "for your own good"- always brings negative consequences.
In fact, I think the evidence is clear that the current prohibition, and the enforcement efforts related to it, have destroyed more lives (and trampled more liberty in the process) than all the drug abuse that has occurred since humans first discovered that ingesting certain substances made them feel different than normal.
And now I see that Farwell is joining the ignoble ranks of those who use trained dogs to "alert" on these forbidden substances.
It's faulty "science". Yes, the "drug dogs" are trained to alert to the smell of drugs or similar odors, but dogs have a strong desire to please their pack leader. This quickly translates into "I'll say I smell something because I know that's what my Alpha wants". Even imperceptible unconscious signals quickly train the dog to do what is wanted. Just like magic, you get the excuse you needed to violate the Fourth (and Ninth) Amendment- with the dishonest collusion of the Supreme Court.
Can dunking witches be far behind?
In past societies witches were "discovered" using similarly questionable tactics. Burn the accused with red-hot iron, and if they survive unharmed, they are innocent. Or tie them up and toss them in the cow pond; if they sink they are innocent, if they float they are guilty and can then be killed without burdening your conscience. "They had it coming." Everyone "knows" it's reliable, because the authorities insist it is.
Do I think abusing drugs is a good idea? No. I think it's stupid. But abusing "law" and violating liberty in the name of criminalizing drug use is even worse.
These trained dogs are just for the convenience of the police and are damaging to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- which are the only justifications any government can ever have for existing. When society is structured for the benefit of police, it is a police state. This has no place in Farwell, or anywhere else liberty is given lip service.
.
We can debate the merits of the failed War on Politically Incorrect Drugs 'til the cows come home, but my observation is that prohibition- for "the common good", "for the children", or "for your own good"- always brings negative consequences.
In fact, I think the evidence is clear that the current prohibition, and the enforcement efforts related to it, have destroyed more lives (and trampled more liberty in the process) than all the drug abuse that has occurred since humans first discovered that ingesting certain substances made them feel different than normal.
And now I see that Farwell is joining the ignoble ranks of those who use trained dogs to "alert" on these forbidden substances.
It's faulty "science". Yes, the "drug dogs" are trained to alert to the smell of drugs or similar odors, but dogs have a strong desire to please their pack leader. This quickly translates into "I'll say I smell something because I know that's what my Alpha wants". Even imperceptible unconscious signals quickly train the dog to do what is wanted. Just like magic, you get the excuse you needed to violate the Fourth (and Ninth) Amendment- with the dishonest collusion of the Supreme Court.
Can dunking witches be far behind?
In past societies witches were "discovered" using similarly questionable tactics. Burn the accused with red-hot iron, and if they survive unharmed, they are innocent. Or tie them up and toss them in the cow pond; if they sink they are innocent, if they float they are guilty and can then be killed without burdening your conscience. "They had it coming." Everyone "knows" it's reliable, because the authorities insist it is.
Do I think abusing drugs is a good idea? No. I think it's stupid. But abusing "law" and violating liberty in the name of criminalizing drug use is even worse.
These trained dogs are just for the convenience of the police and are damaging to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- which are the only justifications any government can ever have for existing. When society is structured for the benefit of police, it is a police state. This has no place in Farwell, or anywhere else liberty is given lip service.
.
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
Show me yours...
I've seen pictures of Gadsden "Don't tread on me" tattoos, but that has got me wondering...
I'm just curious if anyone out there has a "Time's Up" flag tattoo, yet. With or without the flag border. Do you, or does anyone you know of?
I'm just curious if anyone out there has a "Time's Up" flag tattoo, yet. With or without the flag border. Do you, or does anyone you know of?
If so, I would like to see a picture of it. I'll keep it private if you'd prefer.
Someday, if I ever have the money to waste- and if I could overcome my aversion to needles- I might consider getting one. Not sure where I'd place it, though. Also not sure if I'd want the flat version above, or want a more dynamic "waving" flag design. Or, if I'd only want the striking snake and "Time's Up" without the flag around it.
Probably it's nothing I'll ever have to worry about.
(Just a note: This is my 2,700th blog post. Here I thought I'd run out of anything to say in a week or so- and that was almost 7 years ago.)
(Just a note: This is my 2,700th blog post. Here I thought I'd run out of anything to say in a week or so- and that was almost 7 years ago.)
.
Tuesday, June 04, 2013
Order without coercion is possible
Order without coercion is possible
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 3, 2013)
I have seen people say that there is no point in being libertarian because there will never be a libertarian society. Or because there will always be bad guys who will take advantage of others, or because someone will always be setting up some form of government.
That seems to be a very myopic view of the situation to me.
I'm not libertarian because of a belief that the future won't have problems.
I am libertarian because I know it is always wrong to initiate force- to throw the first punch. I am libertarian because I know it is wrong to steal. Calling theft something else doesn't make it right.
Perhaps there will never be a libertarian society. No one can really know that for sure. It would be a missed opportunity, but it changes nothing for me. It seems silly to refuse to do what's right because there will always be uncooperative troublemakers who will look for excuses to keep attacking and stealing.
Should you refuse to do anything good because it may never quite arrive where you want to end up? Maybe humans will never live on any other planets, but that doesn't make the study of science, which could be used for space travel and extraterrestrial colonies, pointless. Knowledge is power.
Living by libertarian principles gives an ethical foundation that serves you well here and now, making your life better today; not only in some hypothetical future society.
That there will always be bad guys is obvious. Why let them dictate your choices? Why give them power over your life?
True, some people are addicted to telling others what to do, or being told what to do. Those people will forever be trying to set up some sort of system to force everyone to join, "or else". Some people are simply in favor of being stolen from and being coerced to live by someone else's rules. So? Let them.
When you claim some job can't be done without government, remember that slavery was once considered necessary for farming cotton. You can have organization without coercion and theft. Your organization can be fluid, changing to fit the evolving needs of those who are a voluntary part of it at the moment. If you are afraid of allowing people to opt out, it shows you know how unpopular your scheme really is.
If you wait until there's a bandwagon to jump on you may jump too late. If you wait until everyone else is already doing it, does it really count in your favor?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 3, 2013)
I have seen people say that there is no point in being libertarian because there will never be a libertarian society. Or because there will always be bad guys who will take advantage of others, or because someone will always be setting up some form of government.
That seems to be a very myopic view of the situation to me.
I'm not libertarian because of a belief that the future won't have problems.
I am libertarian because I know it is always wrong to initiate force- to throw the first punch. I am libertarian because I know it is wrong to steal. Calling theft something else doesn't make it right.
Perhaps there will never be a libertarian society. No one can really know that for sure. It would be a missed opportunity, but it changes nothing for me. It seems silly to refuse to do what's right because there will always be uncooperative troublemakers who will look for excuses to keep attacking and stealing.
Should you refuse to do anything good because it may never quite arrive where you want to end up? Maybe humans will never live on any other planets, but that doesn't make the study of science, which could be used for space travel and extraterrestrial colonies, pointless. Knowledge is power.
Living by libertarian principles gives an ethical foundation that serves you well here and now, making your life better today; not only in some hypothetical future society.
That there will always be bad guys is obvious. Why let them dictate your choices? Why give them power over your life?
True, some people are addicted to telling others what to do, or being told what to do. Those people will forever be trying to set up some sort of system to force everyone to join, "or else". Some people are simply in favor of being stolen from and being coerced to live by someone else's rules. So? Let them.
When you claim some job can't be done without government, remember that slavery was once considered necessary for farming cotton. You can have organization without coercion and theft. Your organization can be fluid, changing to fit the evolving needs of those who are a voluntary part of it at the moment. If you are afraid of allowing people to opt out, it shows you know how unpopular your scheme really is.
If you wait until there's a bandwagon to jump on you may jump too late. If you wait until everyone else is already doing it, does it really count in your favor?
.
Storm chasing: "Too dangerous"?
This past weekend's deaths of the storm chasing scientists in Oklahoma, and the injuries of the crew of a second car manned by Weather Channel storm chasers, has spawned some really stupid comments about how there needs to be "a conversation" about whether storm chasing is "too dangerous".
When people say there needs to be "a conversation", what they are really saying is that you and I should shut up and allow authorities to discuss and decide among themselves whether more liberty needs to be violated, by "law", for our own good. Oh, you and I can chime in as long as we encourage those violations or are begging for someone to come save us.
The "consensus" will undoubtedly be that government-approved scientists and other authorized people will be "allowed" to continue storm chasing, but people like you and me must be discouraged from doing so- probably subject to some "fine" or other violations if we don't take the hint.
Storm chasing- even the most "irresponsible" kind- is an invaluable tool for learning more about storms and how other people (those who don't want to risk chasing the storms) can survive or avoid the storms. The near-religious belief that only authorized scientists can make valuable discoveries and contributions seems to be widespread among believers in The State. But it's wrong.
People know chasing tornadoes is dangerous. That is why they do it. They know, intellectually, that there is a risk of death (even if emotionally they feel invincible). NASCAR is dangerous. Over-eating is dangerous. Driving is dangerous. Thinking for yourself is dangerous. Without danger, what is life?
I would bet that everyone does something that someone else, somewhere, would consider "too dangerous".
Don't force people to do things that they feel are "too dangerous", but don't prevent those to whom boredom is the biggest danger from doing what gives them enjoyment. Especially when it can benefit the rest of us so much.
.
When people say there needs to be "a conversation", what they are really saying is that you and I should shut up and allow authorities to discuss and decide among themselves whether more liberty needs to be violated, by "law", for our own good. Oh, you and I can chime in as long as we encourage those violations or are begging for someone to come save us.
The "consensus" will undoubtedly be that government-approved scientists and other authorized people will be "allowed" to continue storm chasing, but people like you and me must be discouraged from doing so- probably subject to some "fine" or other violations if we don't take the hint.
Storm chasing- even the most "irresponsible" kind- is an invaluable tool for learning more about storms and how other people (those who don't want to risk chasing the storms) can survive or avoid the storms. The near-religious belief that only authorized scientists can make valuable discoveries and contributions seems to be widespread among believers in The State. But it's wrong.
People know chasing tornadoes is dangerous. That is why they do it. They know, intellectually, that there is a risk of death (even if emotionally they feel invincible). NASCAR is dangerous. Over-eating is dangerous. Driving is dangerous. Thinking for yourself is dangerous. Without danger, what is life?
I would bet that everyone does something that someone else, somewhere, would consider "too dangerous".
Don't force people to do things that they feel are "too dangerous", but don't prevent those to whom boredom is the biggest danger from doing what gives them enjoyment. Especially when it can benefit the rest of us so much.
.
Monday, June 03, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)