Saying "You have no right to initiate force" is not the same as saying "Thou shalt not initiate force".
Sometimes I wonder if people get the distinction. Probably not, since most seem to have been programmed to see things only in terms of "Thou shalt not...".
If you feel you "must" initiate force to prevent what you believe to be a looming disaster (an obviously drunk/impaired driver, for example), then go ahead and do it with the full understanding that you are acting outside of what you have a right to do, and accept ALL the consequences, even if you feel they are not "fair".
And don't think it's OK to steal money to pay for others to do it on your behalf. It isn't. In fact, I think that's even worse than initiating force yourself. It just makes more people guilty.
.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Want to be a slave?
Do you consider yourself a slave to gravity? Or to your body?
If not, why would you consider yourself a slave to "government"?
The theft and coercion that get called "government" are a reality of the world. (Just as are theft and coercion that don't get any particular label attached.) To say that this makes you or others a slave is a defeatist attitude. It may be all around you, but it only enslaves you if you let it.
You have a brain. Use it to find ways around the theft and coercion. Find ways to use "government" against itself (not against others) when backed into a corner. It can be satisfying to watch a pack of dogs turn on each other.
Don't accept the status of slave that the thugs and goons would want you to accept. Navigate the real world the best you can, always living by the ZAP, and never giving the bad guys more power than they really possess.
"Government" exists. You are not a slave to it unless you want to be.
.
If not, why would you consider yourself a slave to "government"?
The theft and coercion that get called "government" are a reality of the world. (Just as are theft and coercion that don't get any particular label attached.) To say that this makes you or others a slave is a defeatist attitude. It may be all around you, but it only enslaves you if you let it.
You have a brain. Use it to find ways around the theft and coercion. Find ways to use "government" against itself (not against others) when backed into a corner. It can be satisfying to watch a pack of dogs turn on each other.
Don't accept the status of slave that the thugs and goons would want you to accept. Navigate the real world the best you can, always living by the ZAP, and never giving the bad guys more power than they really possess.
"Government" exists. You are not a slave to it unless you want to be.
.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Column incubator for feds' ideas
Column incubator for feds' ideas
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 24, 2013)
Federal employees must read my columns and use the warnings therein as a blueprint for future schemes, just as Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and George Orwell's "1984" seem to have been adopted as suggestions for governing rather than as the dire warnings they should have been.
Recent news that the National Transportation Safety Board is seeking to further lower the "legal standard" for the blood alcohol content that would be called "drunk"- to 0.05%- echoes a warning I gave in a previous column in this space about a hypothetical future where driving after eating a turkey dinner is criminalized as "driving under the influence". Welcome to the future.
No one I know of thinks driving while drunk is a good idea. There is, however, a legal concept known as "prior restraint". Actions that "might" harm someone can't be a real crime and can't legitimately be punished as one. Otherwise everything you do would be illegal and make you subject to arrest. Which might just be the real goal, after all.
Every action has some probability of causing harm, and the "law" is a poor method of deciding what the odds are. Unless an incident occurs where someone has actually been hurt or private property has been damaged, there is no individual victim and no crime can have been committed. No matter what the "law" might say, how strictly it is enforced, or how much you disapprove of the action involved. "The majority" may want to punish "pre-crime", but it will always be wrong to do so.
Anytime a "law" is expanded to criminalize more people- even if the intentions are supposedly good- a larger net has been cast and it creates more criminals and further delegitimizes everything else the "law" is expected to accomplish. It's a form of inflation- the more of something you make, the less each unit of it is worth.
The "law" can't lose much more value and continue to exist in any meaningful way. For an increasing number of people it has already lost all legitimacy.
Instead of "prior restraint", what is needed is real restitution for any and all harm that is done to an individual victim (which is never the State)- no matter the circumstances.
If you cause a wreck and an innocent person dies as a result, what does it matter whether you were drunk, texting, "running a license plate", sleepy, scolding a child, or sneezing? Do you really think the family of the dead victim cares what your excuse is? They don't, unless it happens to be their adopted "cause".
Federal employees must read my columns and use the warnings therein as a blueprint for future schemes, just as Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and George Orwell's "1984" seem to have been adopted as suggestions for governing rather than as the dire warnings they should have been.
Recent news that the National Transportation Safety Board is seeking to further lower the "legal standard" for the blood alcohol content that would be called "drunk"- to 0.05%- echoes a warning I gave in a previous column in this space about a hypothetical future where driving after eating a turkey dinner is criminalized as "driving under the influence". Welcome to the future.
No one I know of thinks driving while drunk is a good idea. There is, however, a legal concept known as "prior restraint". Actions that "might" harm someone can't be a real crime and can't legitimately be punished as one. Otherwise everything you do would be illegal and make you subject to arrest. Which might just be the real goal, after all.
Every action has some probability of causing harm, and the "law" is a poor method of deciding what the odds are. Unless an incident occurs where someone has actually been hurt or private property has been damaged, there is no individual victim and no crime can have been committed. No matter what the "law" might say, how strictly it is enforced, or how much you disapprove of the action involved. "The majority" may want to punish "pre-crime", but it will always be wrong to do so.
Anytime a "law" is expanded to criminalize more people- even if the intentions are supposedly good- a larger net has been cast and it creates more criminals and further delegitimizes everything else the "law" is expected to accomplish. It's a form of inflation- the more of something you make, the less each unit of it is worth.
The "law" can't lose much more value and continue to exist in any meaningful way. For an increasing number of people it has already lost all legitimacy.
Instead of "prior restraint", what is needed is real restitution for any and all harm that is done to an individual victim (which is never the State)- no matter the circumstances.
If you cause a wreck and an innocent person dies as a result, what does it matter whether you were drunk, texting, "running a license plate", sleepy, scolding a child, or sneezing? Do you really think the family of the dead victim cares what your excuse is? They don't, unless it happens to be their adopted "cause".
.
Mixing eras for enjoyment
As you may have realized, I am not a man much constrained by any particular historical era. I have been known to be dressed in buckskins with a cell phone on my belt next to my flintlock pistol and bowie knife.
I tend to go with whatever works, as long as it doesn't violate my principles.
In following this personal quirk I discovered a cool way to listen to the music on my cell phone. I turn on the music and place the phone in the horn of my knock-off victrola and enjoy the rich sound, amplified enough to actually be heard perfectly.
Yeah, it works.
Try it some time, assuming you have one. A phone that plays music, I mean.
.
I tend to go with whatever works, as long as it doesn't violate my principles.
In following this personal quirk I discovered a cool way to listen to the music on my cell phone. I turn on the music and place the phone in the horn of my knock-off victrola and enjoy the rich sound, amplified enough to actually be heard perfectly.
Yeah, it works.
Try it some time, assuming you have one. A phone that plays music, I mean.
.
In the dog house. Again.
My Clovis News Journal columns may be watered-down a bit more- at least for a while.
The publisher is unhappy that the theme "government is theft and coercion" seems to keep cropping up and I have been instructed to avoid mentioning that particular 800-pound gorilla until he cools off. Or until he stops paying attention to me again. I'm usually OK until he notices me. Yes, a lot of that is my fault.
I realize that I have a very thin rope to walk in my newspaper columns. I will not compromise the message or the principles, but I also have to try to offer it in as gentle a way as possible. Don't wanna startle the herd and cause a stampede.
So, for a while, I have to find ways to promote the idea of voluntary, consensual society, without contrasting it to the current situation too obviously.
If I didn't need the money/pittance, and if I didn't get so much positive feedback- in person- from people I run into around town, it wouldn't be worth it. But, I can see I am making a difference in at least some individual lives around me, and that is as powerful a motivator as the money (which is desperately needed).
I really need to start asking the "locals" who tell me how much they appreciate my columns to please consider sending the publisher an email letting him know. I'd like him to hear from someone other than the local politicians and partisans who apparently have such a problem with him publishing my columns. But I invariably think of it when it's too late.
.
The publisher is unhappy that the theme "government is theft and coercion" seems to keep cropping up and I have been instructed to avoid mentioning that particular 800-pound gorilla until he cools off. Or until he stops paying attention to me again. I'm usually OK until he notices me. Yes, a lot of that is my fault.
I realize that I have a very thin rope to walk in my newspaper columns. I will not compromise the message or the principles, but I also have to try to offer it in as gentle a way as possible. Don't wanna startle the herd and cause a stampede.
So, for a while, I have to find ways to promote the idea of voluntary, consensual society, without contrasting it to the current situation too obviously.
If I didn't need the money/pittance, and if I didn't get so much positive feedback- in person- from people I run into around town, it wouldn't be worth it. But, I can see I am making a difference in at least some individual lives around me, and that is as powerful a motivator as the money (which is desperately needed).
I really need to start asking the "locals" who tell me how much they appreciate my columns to please consider sending the publisher an email letting him know. I'd like him to hear from someone other than the local politicians and partisans who apparently have such a problem with him publishing my columns. But I invariably think of it when it's too late.
.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Doom, Disaster, and Amnesty!
How about instead of getting your knickers in a knot over "Amnesty"- for or against- you accept the fact (yes, FACT) that it can never be a crime to simply move to where you would rather be, as long as you don't trespass on private property in the process? No matter what words have been written or uttered to that effect.
Instead of hacking in futility at those branches of evil- the ones labeled "they'll overwhelm the social services" and "they'll vote for more collectivism" or "they'll take our jobs"- strike the root.
It is a disastrous idea to set up a State, or to allow one to continue. States are always, and invariably, ONLY used to violate the rights of individuals. None of the above "issues" would be imaginable without The State making them possible.
That is the source of any problem with "Amnesty". Face it, accept it, and deal with it however you see fit.
.
Instead of hacking in futility at those branches of evil- the ones labeled "they'll overwhelm the social services" and "they'll vote for more collectivism" or "they'll take our jobs"- strike the root.
It is a disastrous idea to set up a State, or to allow one to continue. States are always, and invariably, ONLY used to violate the rights of individuals. None of the above "issues" would be imaginable without The State making them possible.
That is the source of any problem with "Amnesty". Face it, accept it, and deal with it however you see fit.
.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Becoming what you fight
I have expressed my opposition to government-imposed "death penalties" before. But maybe I haven't expressed the thing I find most horrifying. Besides the abominable error rate in convictions, that is.
It's not that I oppose the death penalty out of misplaced sympathy for murderers- I don't- it's that I hate it because of what it does to those who carry it out and those who salivate to see it done. It turns them into murderers and revenge whores.
Death at the hands of an intended victim or a rescuer is justice- or better. It prevents the violation from being carried to conclusion- it nips it in the bud. And it prevents the attacker from victimizing anyone else, ever again. There is also almost no room for error, as long as no innocent bystander gets harmed in the process. You don't get attacked by a rapist, and then in self defense kill an innocent guy who just happens to look a little like him, but was miles away at the time. Not when the attack is in progress. Afterwards....?
Death years later at the hands of some hired killer- paid with stolen money, no less- is murder motivated by revenge.
So, no. I don't hate the "death penalty" because of what it does to murderers. Death is appropriate for many of them.
But for those who kill them for The State? It turns them into worse than those they kill. That's right- "capital punishment" is worse than almost all free lance murders- done without warning, in the heat of the moment, and without any illusion of legitimacy.
It is premeditated; clinical; ritualistic; almost religious. Barbaric in the extreme. In large part because of the reverential way it is viewed by its fans. Just imagine a freelance murderer going through the motions of killing his victims in the same way- the same ritual- as the State murderers do it. You can't approve of that behavior, no matter who is doing it, and not be damaged by your approval.
It is not justice, it is the worst form of revenge. It's symbolic- cleansing society of a diseased individual. When in reality it accomplishes nothing of the sort. The "diseased individual" is already removed from society when caged. And the ritual only creates more diseased individuals.
No "government" anywhere has employees who are perfect enough or wise enough to be trusted with the power of life and death.
There is no perfect solution. Some innocent people will always die, and some really bad guys will always escape justice. But that's no excuse to stick with a "solution" that is better suited to a barbaric past. The past where "The State" also belongs.
.
It's not that I oppose the death penalty out of misplaced sympathy for murderers- I don't- it's that I hate it because of what it does to those who carry it out and those who salivate to see it done. It turns them into murderers and revenge whores.
Death at the hands of an intended victim or a rescuer is justice- or better. It prevents the violation from being carried to conclusion- it nips it in the bud. And it prevents the attacker from victimizing anyone else, ever again. There is also almost no room for error, as long as no innocent bystander gets harmed in the process. You don't get attacked by a rapist, and then in self defense kill an innocent guy who just happens to look a little like him, but was miles away at the time. Not when the attack is in progress. Afterwards....?
Death years later at the hands of some hired killer- paid with stolen money, no less- is murder motivated by revenge.
So, no. I don't hate the "death penalty" because of what it does to murderers. Death is appropriate for many of them.
But for those who kill them for The State? It turns them into worse than those they kill. That's right- "capital punishment" is worse than almost all free lance murders- done without warning, in the heat of the moment, and without any illusion of legitimacy.
It is premeditated; clinical; ritualistic; almost religious. Barbaric in the extreme. In large part because of the reverential way it is viewed by its fans. Just imagine a freelance murderer going through the motions of killing his victims in the same way- the same ritual- as the State murderers do it. You can't approve of that behavior, no matter who is doing it, and not be damaged by your approval.
It is not justice, it is the worst form of revenge. It's symbolic- cleansing society of a diseased individual. When in reality it accomplishes nothing of the sort. The "diseased individual" is already removed from society when caged. And the ritual only creates more diseased individuals.
No "government" anywhere has employees who are perfect enough or wise enough to be trusted with the power of life and death.
There is no perfect solution. Some innocent people will always die, and some really bad guys will always escape justice. But that's no excuse to stick with a "solution" that is better suited to a barbaric past. The past where "The State" also belongs.
.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Your "Right" to be evil
I have been scolded by people who say that if government goes away it would violate the rights of people who want to be a government employee. What?!
Taking away the "right" to be a cop or an IRS agent doesn't actually violate anyone's rights. It's the same as taking away the "right" to be a mass-murdering cannibal. You have no "right" to violate other people. Not freelance, and not as your "9 to 5 job".
If I had the ability to push "the button" and make "government" instantly evaporate- and with it, your tax-parasite "job"- I wouldn't be violating your rights in any way.
Now, not too many dedicated statists have tried this argument, but I've heard it a few times.
Sorry, but if you have a strong desire to rob and attack people, you can do it without the myth of "government legitimacy" backing you up and see how long your choice remains viable. You'll still have the same choice you've always had: live by the economic method (voluntary trade), or by the political method (theft and coercion).
I, for one, don't fall for the lie that your evil acts are somehow mitigated by the "consent of the governed" or "the Majority" or who your employer might be. If you act like a thug, you are a thug.
.
Taking away the "right" to be a cop or an IRS agent doesn't actually violate anyone's rights. It's the same as taking away the "right" to be a mass-murdering cannibal. You have no "right" to violate other people. Not freelance, and not as your "9 to 5 job".
If I had the ability to push "the button" and make "government" instantly evaporate- and with it, your tax-parasite "job"- I wouldn't be violating your rights in any way.
Now, not too many dedicated statists have tried this argument, but I've heard it a few times.
Sorry, but if you have a strong desire to rob and attack people, you can do it without the myth of "government legitimacy" backing you up and see how long your choice remains viable. You'll still have the same choice you've always had: live by the economic method (voluntary trade), or by the political method (theft and coercion).
I, for one, don't fall for the lie that your evil acts are somehow mitigated by the "consent of the governed" or "the Majority" or who your employer might be. If you act like a thug, you are a thug.
.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Protective talismans
I was reading an article about some private group "illegally" painting crosswalks on streets because the local thugs who claim ownership of the streets wouldn't. They said the lack of painted crosswalks was too dangerous, and that several members of their group had been hit by cars due to the lack of clearly marked crosswalks.
They took the initiative and did something, with their own time and money, that they believed needed to be done. And didn't violate anyone's property rights in doing so.
I don't have a problem with that (even though the local thugs had a big enough problem that they spent as much money scraping away the crosswalks as it would have cost to paint them in the first place), but it does raise some other questions in my mind.
Whatever happened to pedestrians (as people) being responsible for watching out for themselves?
Whether I am walking, biking, or driving I know my safety is MY responsibility. I never assume the other guy sees me or cares whether or not he runs over me. Sure, it is nice if others are watching out for me, but I don't trust my life on that gamble. I don't assume that a stop sign means oncoming cars will stop. Or that a "law" that says they must will make it so.
The ultimate responsibility for my safety is mine- not that I can always avoid accidents. That doesn't absolve anyone else from their responsibility if their carelessness causes an accident. So, sure, I might seek restitution for harm if someone else is at fault. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
But seriously, does anyone really believe that paint on the asphalt will prevent accidents? Stripes painted on a road accomplish nothing real- it's magical thinking to believe they do.
My question to those who trust signs, paint, and "laws": What other magical talismans do you believe in? Do you blindly trust stop signs to physically stop oncoming cars, too? Do you never look for yourself, trusting that the signs and paint will reach out and protect you from harm? It seems some people do.
.
They took the initiative and did something, with their own time and money, that they believed needed to be done. And didn't violate anyone's property rights in doing so.
I don't have a problem with that (even though the local thugs had a big enough problem that they spent as much money scraping away the crosswalks as it would have cost to paint them in the first place), but it does raise some other questions in my mind.
Whatever happened to pedestrians (as people) being responsible for watching out for themselves?
Whether I am walking, biking, or driving I know my safety is MY responsibility. I never assume the other guy sees me or cares whether or not he runs over me. Sure, it is nice if others are watching out for me, but I don't trust my life on that gamble. I don't assume that a stop sign means oncoming cars will stop. Or that a "law" that says they must will make it so.
The ultimate responsibility for my safety is mine- not that I can always avoid accidents. That doesn't absolve anyone else from their responsibility if their carelessness causes an accident. So, sure, I might seek restitution for harm if someone else is at fault. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
But seriously, does anyone really believe that paint on the asphalt will prevent accidents? Stripes painted on a road accomplish nothing real- it's magical thinking to believe they do.
My question to those who trust signs, paint, and "laws": What other magical talismans do you believe in? Do you blindly trust stop signs to physically stop oncoming cars, too? Do you never look for yourself, trusting that the signs and paint will reach out and protect you from harm? It seems some people do.
.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Appeasement contortionists
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'
.
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'
.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)