"Terrorism" depends on cowardice

"Terrorism" can only be used as an excuse for anything because of pervasive cowardice in certain quarters.  After all, only cowards want to dictate to everyone else based upon their own fears.

Government officials are cowards, so they try to make themselves feel better by shifting the blame  to those who scare them.  You don't have to admit you are a coward if you call the other guy a "terrorist" and pretend he possesses superhuman attributes that he uses for evil.

Of course, that just makes the cowards more obvious once you begin to notice them.

I never hear anyone talking about "terrorism" unless they are commenting on something said or done by the "powards" in DC.  Real people just don't worry about it.  Real people aren't that easily frightened.  At least on their own.  That's why the cowards with political power have to work so hard to overcome people's natural courage and replace it with cowardice.  And, in making that attempt, those cowards become the only real terrorists out there.

-

And please don't forget.

.

A bleg

I apologize for the begging, but I'm falling behind on some things I need to catch up on. If at all possible.

 I had some unexpected and unwelcome expenses rear their ugly heads recently, so if you've been considering donating or subscribing (links on the left) to help keep me writing, and to keep me writing without the constraints of trying to not offend a boss with what I write on my personal time, this would be a good time.

Writing is how I earn my money (when and if I earn it), and if not for the generous support of readers who have been helping me keep the bills paid, I would have already had to curtail the writing for something less fulfilling (and less controversial) but more lucrative. I won't "share" this bleg on facebook, twitter, or anywhere else but here, so if you know anyone who might want to contribute, send them the link.

 If you can't help out, then please don't! I never want anyone to feel bad for not contributing. Not ever!

If you can, and just don't want to, then I also don't want you to. Nor do I want you to give it a second thought. No problem.

 If you can, want to, and do- then I thank you from the bottom of my heart!

Or, you could buy lots of my books and help me out while spreading the liberty meme.

.

One-size-fits-all system is immoral

One-size-fits-all system is immoral

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 7, 2013.)

Most libertarians would be perfectly happy to stand aside as you form any society your little heart desires. You could form a democracy, republic, theocracy, dictatorship, or even a nostalgic "Communist Utopia". Whatever melts your butter. It's none of my business how you organize your community, as long as it is consensual.

As long as you give the rest of us the same respect.

Therein lies the problem.

Most forms of government don't permit any competition, or even any real variety, in their vicinity, and the True Believers tend to believe it's OK to kill in order to prevent others from opting out or forming a parallel system.

They are even willing to risk everything they value and believe in just to prevent others from forming their own way of operating outside the one-size-fits-all system that is in fashion. Instead of "live and let live" they prefer "if you don't like it you have the same opportunity to vote to change the government that everyone else has". In case of success they'd be the outcasts in the minority, then.

Besides being ridiculous and socially suicidal, it completely misses the point. Since libertarians don't fall for the belief that it's right to force a minority to live under the rules of the majority- especially when those rules are understood to be immoral and unethical- then we know it would be wrong to do so even to impose what we know would be in everyone's best interest. The suggestion is like saying you must drink whiskey until you can manage to "vote" it into water. It's not going to happen like that.

Libertarians are at a distinct disadvantage in this game since we can't pretend it's OK to kill people if they won't agree to live by the Zero Aggression Principle, at least until they attack someone or the property of another. See the problem?

It's amusing that those who claim their system is "The Best" seem the most terrified of allowing anyone the freedom to experiment with alternative ways. It's as if they don't really believe their own propaganda and are afraid that a better way might actually be found, and that it might become popular enough to replace their system.

The good news for you is that if libertarians ever become the majority, they'll not interfere with you as long as you keep your hands to yourself and don't damage the private property of those outside your group. After all, we'll always need living reminders around so our kids can see the folly of statism with their own eyes.
.

Self-incrimination in front of averted eyes

I can warn people every day of my life that cops are thugscum, but my words will usually make no difference to anyone.  Only cops can prove me right by their actions. And they do.  Daily, in spades.

So why are so many people still in denial?  I think it's because they are desperate to have heroes. They want someone to be their protector.  They manage to talk themselves into believing that everyone murdered, robbed, kidnapped, and caged by cops somehow deserved it.

They grew up being brainwashed that "The policeman is your friend" and it is hard to shake that programming even in the face of overwhelming, deadly, evidence to the contrary.

Cops have become their own worst enemy- they just haven't realized it yet.  And considering that a low IQ (along with a total lack of ethics, and aggressive psychological disorders) is now a requirement for the "job", I doubt they ever will.

.

Consequences: natural and artificial

Actions have consequences.  No one should be in denial of that fact.  You step off the edge of a cliff and you will discover the consequences of living on a planetary surface under the influence of gravity while being a non-flying mammal.

There are natural consequences and artificial ones.

Saying that jail is a "natural" consequence of drug use is a lie. It is an artificial consequence made real by evil actions committed by sick people. The natural consequences of drug abuse (note: not use) can be horrific.  But there is no justifiable reason to heap artificial consequences on top of the natural ones.  

You don't "help" a person by caging them, stealing their money and other property, by making them lose their job, and by alienating them and their family.  Only a truly sick individual would see that as "helping" them.

An honest drug warrior would acknowledge that it is all about punishment.  But that is also evil.  You can't be a decent human being while punishing people for harming themselves.  And don't forget, almost ALL the negative consequences of drug use have nothing whatsoever to do with the drugs, but everything to do with prohibition.  Drug users (and abusers) who manage to avoid detection by the authoriturds generally live productive lives due to the absence of the life-destroying artificial consequences.  And even if they do destroy themselves, that is their right.

If someone's actions harm another person or their property, then it makes zero difference if they are "on drugs" or not.  Stop pretending otherwise.

.

What are little wars made of? Not sugar and spice...

War is crime.  It is murder, kidnapping, theft, destruction of property, trespassing, and every other evil act all rolled into one neat package.  That means the solution to it- the way to prevent it from happening- is the same: a universally armed populace.

Designating one family member as being responsible for defense of all is a poor tactic.  Even if every family member is supposedly supporting the armed defender, you are weaker than if everyone is taking actual, physical responsibility.  You must make sure every family member is ready and equipped for defense.

The best way to keep from being harmed by the bad guys is to prevent them from attacking in the first place.  Don't be a sheep.

You don't prevent them from attacking by becoming the bully, or by goading them into a fight, or by becoming what you claim to be preventing.  And taunting them is just asking for trouble.

Telling your neighbor what he is allowed to own, or do on his own property, and backing up your demands with force or the threat of force, is an act of aggression.  Invading his property to make sure he is complying with your meddlesome edicts qualifies you for a bullet to the head.

Really want "national security"?  Then get rid of all anti-gun "laws" and disband the military.  Anything else is just looking for trouble.

-

This began with every intention of making it a CNJ column.  It quickly became obvious there could be no way to neuter it enough to get it past the gate.  So, here it is in all its glory.

.

Government is childishness

I notice my young daughter is skilled in the art of bait and switch.  "Let's go outside" becomes "Let's go to the playground" as soon as we are outside, which then becomes "No, I meant the other playground" (which is farther away) as soon as we head across the street.  Even the farther playground can become a waystation for McDonald's or something... if I let it.

Dealing with her bait and switch tactics makes me laugh.  But some people's bait and switch is no laughing matter.

"Let us take care of you in your old age" became "Let us take care of your medical bills when you can't pay them" which became "It's illegal to work without our tracking number and permission".  Sure, there were a lot more steps than that.

It's the same with "immigration", guns, drugs, "taxation", regulation, licensing, and everything else people have allowed the perverted molesters of State to get away with having some say in.

In everything that government-employed bureaucrats and other thugs do, they employ the old bait and switch routine.  Get you to accept the first step, and then keep changing the goal and taking advantage of your momentum.

Which goes to show that all "government" is stuck in 5-year old behavior of some sort. Whether it's communism, bait and switch, or being afraid of imaginary monsters.  Sometimes you just wanna grab those supposed "adults" by the collar and warn them to grow up.

.

Fourth of July

Independence Day is dead. Long live The Fourth of July.

It used to bother me that people never called the day "Independence Day".  But I finally realized they were right all along. I was wrong. It isn't Independence Day.  Not anymore.

Now it's all about dependence.  Dependence upon military worship- called "patriotism".  Dependence upon what the "laws" allow you to do to celebrate the watered down version of the holiday.  It's all about worshiping the greatest enemy that America ever faced- The State.  The way "The 4th" is celebrated now is spitting in the face of the original reason for the holiday.

I'm against "capital punishment" but it seems that the honest way to celebrate Independence Day, a real Independence Day, would be to tar and feather, or hang- depending on the damage the individual has done- a few anti-liberty bigot politicians.  Each and every year.  That would be appropriate to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.  It would serve as a warning that the death of independence will not go unpunished.

But that's just wishful thinking.  So instead I will honor independence in my own mind while I ignore everyone around me celebrating The Fourth of July.

And I'll fly my own flag, thank you very much...
.

Spreading cowardice

What causes cowardice?

I think it is a suspicion that you can't handle a situation.  Maybe due to lots of past failure.  Or because you have been discouraged- or prevented- from testing your wings. 

"Government" seems to be designed to prevent people from gaining the necessary experience which would lead to confidence.  Or to bravery. 

And without cowards "government" would wither away and die.  It (well, those who call themselves members of that coercive, thieving gang) breeds what it needs. 

I plan to work towards countering the brainwashing.

.

You can't give away what you don't possess

You can't give away what you don't possess

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 31, 2013)

Can you give me an actual living, breathing, Tyrannosaurus rex? No. Why not? Because you don't have one to give. You can't give away something you don't possess- especially if it doesn't exist.

So how can you pretend to give government employees the authority to do things on your behalf which you never had the authority to do on your own? Things such as to forbid guns in some circumstances, some methods of carry, or to certain people. Or to kick in doors to get drugs. Or to require licenses for driving or conducting business. Or to take a percentage of everyone's property.

The truth is, you can't give that authority because you never possessed it; no one did- it never even existed. In every case it's completely wrong to do those things since no one has the authority to violate the fundamental rights, under Natural Law, of their fellow humans. When someone chooses to do those things anyway they become an enemy to other individuals, and by extension, to society. Even to civilization.

Theft, aggression, and every other violation of individual sovereignty need to be seen as the destructive forces they are, and they need to be universally rejected, not delegated to some authority.

As one example of this truth, police don't have any "special authority"- or at least they were never intended to. Just as you hire someone to haul your trash to the landfill, even though you are perfectly capable of doing so yourself but would rather not be bothered with the mundane task, police were to be paid to do full-time what everyone had the authority to do anyway: stop theft and aggression.

If only society would return to this principle, and individuals would take responsibility for themselves again instead of leaning on the crutch, it would solve a lot of problems.

As it is, police are now believed to have special authority; authority that never existed and therefore can not be delegated to them by you or anyone. This imaginary "special authority" creates an "us vs. them" gulf that will only keep growing wider and more dangerous until it is stopped cold, and reversed.

Police are only one small facet of the problem. Any "law" that pretends to give any government employee more authority than any random person on the street is not a legitimate law. In fact, as their boss, you have more real authority than the job can ever confer upon them. Never let the uppity servants order the masters around, and never tolerate their violation of anyone's liberty.

That is within your rightful authority.

.

Keeping your promises to a murderer

Let's say your best friend swears you to secrecy before he will tell you something juicy.  Then, after you swore to keep his secret, he tells you he raped and murdered a young girl.  Who in their right mind would believe the promise to keep the secret was more important than an attempt at justice?  Or to inform others of the danger he poses?  Who would be angry with you for breaking your oath to the murderous rapist?

And why is the Edward Snowden case any different?

.

Again with the cowards

The guy whose fear opened my eyes to the cowardice surrounding me wasn't really one of those "powards".  He lacked any real power.  But he was grateful for the powards who had made up, and enforced, the rules that gave him the fragile illusion of "safety".  The illusion that he had accidentally glimpsed a crack in.

You could see the fear in his eyes as he spoke of the GUN he had almost encountered.

These cowards will never feel "safe enough".  They would really like for everyone else to be as afraid as they are.  Those who aren't shine the light of pity on the fearful.  They expose the shortcoming.  The cowards don't want to feel bad about themselves, so they would like to reduce everyone else to a quivering puddle so they'll have no one exposing them for the pathetic people they truly are.

So they advocate, pass, support, and enforce all manner of pointless and counterproductive "laws" that can never really even make them feel safe, while seeking to harm- yes, HARM- those who aren't as cowardly.  Their rules actually make them much less safe by empowering the real bad guys.  Which makes me wonder if the cowards actually get a thrill out of being fearful.

Of course, these "laws" could also be explained by the fact that the people who advocate, pass, support, and enforce them are just plain evil.  So you are seeing the results of evil and/or cowardice.

There are things I am afraid of.  Heights.  Aggressive large dogs.  Probably something else, too.  The difference is that I am not such a coward that I want to level the world to remove all heights, ban people from washing windows on skyscrapers, or make big dogs "illegal".  I know my fears are my problem and it isn't your obligation to coddle me.

Maybe this is why I feel such contempt for cowards.  I have fears; I deal with them without violating you.  Why won't they do the same?  I think it's high time I insist they do.

.

Down With Powards!

Down With Powards! 

(My latest contribution to The Libertarian Enterprise)

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that America has become a culture of cowards.

"No guns" = cowardice. "War on terrorism" = cowardice. "War on Politically Incorrect Drugs" = cowardice.

Cowards, cowards, cowards, everywhere cowards, cowering in their pools of cowardice. I am saddened and disgusted by displays of overt cowardice. I don't want my kids to suffer from your cowardice or to catch it from you. I'd rather they not be exposed to it, either. And I want them to know it when they see it.

Cowards hide behind "policies" that they falsely believe will protect them from the oh-so-scary and dangerous world. But their policies just reinforce their cowardice, infect others, and attempt to weed out the non-cowards. As they say: The Brave die once; a coward dies a thousand times—at least once each and every day, I would bet.

I had a little discussion with a couple of city employees a few days ago. Because of the way I dress, they were worried I might be armed. They even got "the vapors" over the knife on my belt and asked me to leave it in my car. As far as they know, I complied.

As I was leaving, one followed me outside to explain that there had been an incident the night before with an ARMED PERSON with A GUN on the premises! That is why they were twitchy and cautious. No indication there had actually been any aggression committed, but that's beside the point to the cowards of the world.

I told the guy his concern and the policy were stupid. Yes, I probably should have been more diplomatic. I said all he was doing was handing the rest of us over to the bad guys by worrying about guns. I told him no bad guy will ever obey a "no guns" sign (which wasn't displayed there anyway), and he agreed. He countered by saying that in today's world, though, you can be shot for wearing the wrong color shirt, so you can't be too careful. I said that tragic reality is directly because of policies aimed at disarming the good guys, since good guys are the only ones who would ever obey such a policy. I told him all he's doing is empowering the bad guys and giving them the advantage and encouraging them to be bold. Once again, he reluctantly agreed. I told him the policy was cowardly and made me sad. He said he is only a city employee and it's a city policy and he has to enforce it. I said that's just sad, and I walked away.

Look, if you think your anti-gun policy is enhancing "safety" or "the Peace", you are wrong. All you are doing is punishing everyone else and handing your friends and neighbors over to the aggressive parasites on a silver platter. You are basically saying "Here, I've prepared your prey for you just the way you like it. Do with them as you will before I can get other armed thugs here to sort it all out." That's the way of the coward, and it disgusts and saddens me. I want no part of your cowardice.

I'd rather face a few dangers (which would be fewer without the cowards making "policy") than be surrounded by the surrender monkeys.

Surely I am not alone in that.

I aim to recognize bravery and never silently acquiesce to the cowards in power. Down with Powards!

.

Sick of cowards!

Cowards.  More specifically, "powards".  Powerful cowards.

The world is in a terrible mess because normal people have too long coddled cowards and accommodated thieves and thugs.  Most people have been too nice to call out these people who are ruining things for everyone else with their cowardice and parasitism.

Most positions of political power are held by people completely crippled with cowardice.  Just look at all the anti-gun bigots in congress and try to tell me those people aren't completely enslaved by their cowardice.

A recent event brought this home to me.

I, personally, have been too nice to cowards just about all my life.  And it is making me a little ill to think about.

Why should we who aren't crippled with cowardice bend over backwards to make the cowards more comfy?  Why would we let them dictate what we can do in order to make them feel safer- especially when it will never be enough, since the problem isn't with us or with the world, but within themselves?  Their damaged, frightened selves.

Well... more on this in a bit.

.

Who's responsible for "offense"?

That you have no right to not be offended can also be stated as others have a right to offend you.  Just as long as they don't initiate force or steal/damage your property.

The offense that you feel is not part of them or of their non-coercive act, but of you and your response to them or their act. They are not responsible for your reaction.

But you are responsible for how you behave after you are offended.

That's a hard one for some people to swallow.  It has been difficult for me at some points in my life.  Things go easier for me when I keep that in mind.

.

Don't misunderstand the ZAP

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.

.

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.

.

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".

.

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.

.

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.

.