"Pardon me... could you spare a quoyne?"

If I ever manage to have my Silver Dubloons minted, I  think I shall call the thing which they are, a "quoyne", pronounced /koin/.

Only an absolute moron with a government "job" could mistake that for any other word which is spelled completely differently.  Right?

-

I am looking into financing the project on Kickstarter, but that's not looking too hopeful at the moment.  Too many different "issues", there.  Perhaps I can overcome them all; perhaps I shan't.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Shove 'em ALL off the edge

Those pictures of the Egyptians tossing an armored car full of enforcers right off the side of a bridge is very interesting to me.  It just goes to show that no matter the technological disparity between The State and regular people, it is still a fact that "we" outnumber them by a huge margin.

Thugs can do all sorts of things to try to domesticate the rest of us, but as soon as the illusion is broken- or the anger gets piqued enough- their technology becomes a death trap.

I wonder if the domestic US enforcer thugs in their armored vehicles will learn that lesson before their time comes.  Low IQ + cowardice + paycheck = not likely.

-

And please don't forget.

Selecting for Bad Guys and parasites

Let's say you live in a town that a great many people want desperately to live in due to its reputation for opportunities.  You have a few gates where new prospective residents (and visitors) are expected to enter.

At those gates you put the people through a lot of abuse- you treat them as suspects, demand they give up all sorts of rights and property, and expect them to voluntarily become property of the city.  And you have quotas so that a lot of people who want to get in are denied entry for no reason other than because of where they were born.

Yes, a lot of people want in bad enough to try to do it your way, but many times that number of people know they haven't got a shot at being allowed in if they do it by the book, so they find other routes in.

And, obviously, really bad guys don't even bother with your silly screening process; they just find a way to sneak in.

So, is it any wonder that by limiting the number of good guys coming in under your "system" you select for a glut of bad guys among the new residents?  And then you whine and say you will enclose your town inside a fence, not realizing a fence will change nothing- nothing good, anyway.  It will weed out more of the good people and even further select for the bad.  When you notice this unfortunate trend, you'll do more of the same- harder and harsher, and be "surprised" when the results get even worse.

The smart thing to do is to make it easy for everyone to make a living honestly (don't allow regulations, licenses, and "taxes"), and make it hard to survive being a thug or parasite.  That means don't offer freebies (which are never free) to anyone, and don't do anything to discourage everyone from being adequately armed at all times.

Don't fret over credentials, but only concern yourself with actions.  If someone tries to steal from you (or anyone), deal with it.  Nothing like "where he was born" or "what hoops he jumped through to get into your town" has any bearing on his actions.  None at all.

Until more people accept this truth, silly things like (unconstitutional and unethical) "border control" will keep making America into a worse and worse cage, to the detriment of everyone on both sides of the "border".

-

And please, don't forget.

.

"The Elites"

Are you concerned about the "elites" who "control everything"?

Good news.

There are no "elites".

There are some rich people who use the political method to get richer and to order you around.  But that "political power" only exists if you pretend it does.  Even their wealth depends on your cooperation.  Stop pretending that FRNs have value and those "rich people" will not be so rich anymore.

Sure, they may have some actual money (gold, silver, property) in their possession, but without the FRNs they accumulated having value, they would have to start spending their real money.  They might not be starting from the same place as you or me, but they would not be quite as advantaged.  They wouldn't be able to be "elite" unless you gave them that status.

Come to think of it, that's where they stand now.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Nit-picking ‘fairness’ only leaves you bitter 

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

A "free rider" is someone who uses a service that someone else paid for. In a free society, where everything is financed voluntarily, a person who uses the road, firefighters, or a tornado warning siren without paying towards funding those services could be described as a free rider.

Just how important a stumbling block do you consider this to be?

When a local shopkeeper helps fund the road, he does so in order to make it easier for people to get to his store. Everyone wins.

If a local shopkeeper who refused to help fund the road gets the business of a customer who also refused to contribute toward the road, then do those who paid for the road lose? Who does the "selfish" shopkeeper trade with locally and with whom does he spend the money he got from the "selfish" customer? Does he exist in a vacuum? If you still don't like the fact that he didn't contribute, you would be free to refuse to do business with him in any way.

Don't you think a road that's "worth it" would be built and maintained?

Firefighting is a similar situation. If your house is on fire your neighbor benefits when the fire department you contract with puts out the blaze. And if his house is on fire, but your fire department puts out the flames in order to save your house, he also gets a free ride. In that case he might get a bill for "services rendered", and if he doesn't pay, everyone in town will know who to refuse service to. But aren't you still getting all you paid for? Might nit-picking over whether someone else benefits unfairly just make you bitter?

Is it even possible for everyone to pay equally for every service they use? Not even under communism. However, that's only a problem if you insist on keeping a running tab to make sure everything is "fair". Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame says fairness is just a concept invented so dumb people could participate in discussions. When I observe the world, I think he's on to something.

Why not accept that you will be someone else's "free rider" in some circumstances, and the roles will constantly change?

Besides, in a free society you'd have enough money that you would never have to live with the guilt of not paying what you feel you owe, nor would anyone force you to associate with anyone else for any reason.

Is the free rider really important enough for you to give up your liberty to foil him?

-

And please don't forget.

.

"Taxes", welfare, theft, and the rest

First off, let me emphasize I am not advocating anything here, and my numbers are totally made up and meaningless, other than to illustrate a point.

Let's say that Larry makes $100 at his job.  He is "taxed" $30 even before he gets his money.  (If he manages to get a "refund" from the IRS of all or part of this money, then that amount drops out of the figuring.)  Everything he buys is "taxed" so that he actually only gets $50 worth of buying power in exchange for the life he has traded to his employer.

Now, if he gets food stamps and "free" medical services that amount to anything under $50, I can understand how he could be considered to not be stealing from other people.  If, on the other hand, he is getting "free stuff" in the amount of $55 I think it's pretty reasonable to say he is stealing (or at least "receiving stolen property") at least $5.

Of course, you also have to consider that the price of everything he buys is grossly inflated due to "taxation" at every step of the way.  No one EVER pays "taxes", fees, or any other governmentally-added expense except for the final purchaser.  (That's the "consumer"; you and me.)  This could give him some extra wiggle room.

So, I no longer really fault those who get some of their own money back- or believe they are doing so.  Plus, I suspect that it's all just an accounting trick and every dime of welfare is actually paid with Fed-counterfeited "money" rather than coming from "tax" money stolen from other productive humans.

Now, if you get your paycheck by working directly for "government", then all this goes right out the window.  You pay no "taxes"; it is just a game of smoke and mirrors (and more accounting tricks) to give the illusion of you paying.  If you do a "tax"-supported "job" that shouldn't be done by "government"*, such as a "public" school teacher, a cop, a DMV drone, military, a licensing bureaucrat, etc. then you are doubly wrong if you get additional "free stuff" from your employer in the form of "welfare".

But, assuming you are doing something that actually needs to be done, and would still need to be done even if no one were coerced to finance it, I don't think your are ethically wrong to take some of your money back from the thief- however much you can get.  That doesn't mean it's a good idea or won't hurt you, though.

Remember that there is a grave danger of becoming dependent upon handouts.  Think about how you'd react if the handouts suddenly stopped.  Or, worse, if you were told they would stop unless you did something you know to be wrong, to appease those who control the handouts.  Don't get yourself into that compromised position.

You'd be better off to only use any handouts to undercut The State and its agents in some way.  Use the "welfare" to buy silver, bullets, extra food, and things like that rather than the latest computer game or fancy "athletic" shoes.  But, it's your life and your choice.  Do with this information as you see fit.

*(Notice I am not saying that there would be no similar positions in a free society, but in that case, those who didn't want your "services" wouldn't be forced to pay for them.  But obviously, some of those "jobs" couldn't exist in a free society.)

-

And please don't forget.

The "government-owned word"

A group of psychopathic control freaks decided they "own" a particular word, and people try to accommodate them by tip-toeing around the truth.  The word is "coin".

I like the idea of these "Commodity discs".  And, I fully understand why they try to protect themselves from those aforementioned psychopaths by saying "Misrepresenting Commodity Discs as coins or legal tender is prohibited."  (And, why anyone would want to call real money "legal tender" is beyond me.  Let the counterfeit crap distributed by those who call themselves "government" suffer under that debility.)  But let's face it; they are coins, as the word is used commonly: a metal disc used as a store of trade value.

And trying to accommodate the psychopaths didn't protect Bernard von NotHaus from their vindictive attacks.

That the psychopaths have managed to steal the word "coin" to mean only those metal discs stamped out by people who have their permission and work for the same gang is irrelevant.  It's like saying "a gun isn't a gun unless it is one belonging to some individual who calls himself a government employee.  Otherwise it's a 'propulsion tube'!"  It's ridiculous.

I know a coin when I see one, and so do you.  It's just another one of those "laws" that is designed to make everyone an outlaw.  Well, fine.

They may not be "coin", but they are coins.

And so is every other "silver round" or "disc" out there.  Whether the control freaks like it or not.

-

I'd still love to be able to have my Silver Dubloons minted.  So if you have the desire and resources, talk to me.  Maybe we can work out a deal.  And I'll try to refrain from using the "government's word" when speaking of them.  Just so we both don't end up kidnapped by the psychopaths.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Don't be embarrassed to be different in a good way

To those who are uncomfortable with a "Security State" or a "Nanny State":  Go ahead and speak up.

It's OK to not want to be "safe"- to not want to be a controlled pet. To be different. Don't be shamed into silence.

If you feel that tingling in the back of your head when you hear some human drone yammering about the latest "terror threat", or worshiping cops, or praising some congressvermin, or agreeing with some anti-liberty "law"- gather your thoughts and respond.  YOU are the reasonable one.  THEY are the one who ought to be ashamed.

So speak up.

Don't cut them off or interrupt.  Let them trap themselves more completely by finishing their thought and letting you know just how deeply their denial runs.  Let them give you more ammo.  Let your silence unnerve them.

Then speak up.

You don't have to say a lot- you certainly don't have to go into a Randian monologue.  Just a well-placed snort can sometimes be enough to let the speaker know that they are pathetic in their love of their enslavement.  That they are a reprehensible coward.  And that you find their enthusiasm for such things disgusting.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Failure to communicate

It's easy to speak about liberty to those who understand the words- those who are, or are almost, in agreement.

It's harder to talk about liberty to statists who use similar words to mean opposite concepts.

I don't really like using words like "government", "laws", "patriot", or "America" when I write.  But those who need to hear about liberty the most have to read those words to even begin to understand where to begin- to have a starting point.  Or, at least I have come to believe that's the case.

That's why I try to link to what I mean when I use the words I use.  It doesn't help when someone is one of those who suffer from (or, perhaps enjoy) obstinate ignorance, but it's not my responsibility to fix them.

-

And please don't forget.

The "child porn" attacks

If you follow the news in the world of liberty activism you are probably aware that "someone" is trying to infect the computers of liberty activists with "child pornography".

I am hopeful that spreading the news of this will make the tactic ineffective and "they" will stop bothering.

From Oath Keepers (and from Claire) comes a lawyer's advice on what to do if you are targeted.

However, I think this lawyer is ignoring the reality that the culprit is probably someone associated with the FBI or other feds to begin with.  No one else really has any motive.

I have always been highly suspicious of any attempt to pin "child pornography" charges on those who are against the "government", or have made enemies in some local hive of enforcers, bureaucrats, or puppeticians.  It's just too convenient and silences just about any support for the person.  It makes their (former) friends turn their backs and join the witchhunt.

Use the information as you wish.  Being informed should help protect you from such an attack.

-

And please don't forget.

.

We are not all Mannings

Bradley Manning is a hero.

However, what he did is so incredibly costly to a person that there is no way I expect every employee of the military or other government branch to do the same thing.  It takes a bravery that is rare.

However, I DO expect every person who has principles worth anything to support Mr. Manning's brave and heroic actions.  Anything less is cowardly and just plain wrong.
-

And please don't forget.

.

Plan could save us from socialism pit

Plan could save us from socialism pit

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 5, 2013.  Also here: link)

There are a lot of libertarian books and authors out there. Most of the older examples can be rather dry and difficult for modern readers to wade through. As enlightening a book as Albert Jay Nock's 1935 work "Our Enemy, the State" is, it can't be considered light or leisurely reading. And it will upset a rosy view of government just as surely as any modern writing.

On the other hand, some of the more modern writers can be very entertaining while getting the uncompromising message across.

One such writer is L. Neil Smith, with his book "Down With Power: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis".

Smith is best known as a science fiction writer, but there's no fiction in "Down With Power". The book is a series of no-holds-barred essays dealing with different, mostly State-created, problems and issues, and with his liberty-respecting solutions.

Smith is more hopeful of using the processes and mechanisms of "government" to affect the changes and correct the problems than am I, but it wouldn't bother me one bit to be wrong on this account. He could also be said to lean a bit more to the "conservative" side of the aisle, although that could just be an illusion due to his strong support of gun rights and his opposition to the modern religion of "Environmentalism".

He spans issues from "animal rights", to government-sanctioned marriage, to the indispensable Zero Aggression Principle, and just about everything in between. If you have a gripe, and it somehow involves people running and ruining the lives of others, he probably has something to say about it. You may not automatically agree with what he has to say, but it will do you good to be exposed to- and consider- his ideas, which are expressed in his own lively and passionate style.

His book wraps up with a chapter called "The Plan", where he lays out what could be done to rescue America from this current (and long in the making) cesspool of Democrat and Republican socialism. If put into action, he claims his plan would turn the country around and put it back on course in six months.

I have to agree that his plan would work spectacularly well, and I would love to see more people have the courage to implement it.

"Down With Power: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis" runs about 300 pages and is available from Amazon.com for $14.99 or $9.99 for the Kindle version.

.

A bad trade

To all those who object to totally getting rid of "taxes" I have this to say:

If you can't have roads/military/schools/cops/whatever without theft/coercion then "perhaps" you are better off without them. It's not a good trade. Count me out.

-

And please don't forget..

"Don't trust 'em" isn't new

Back about 13 years ago I had just been dropped off in a strange city in a distant state because I had foolishly followed my new (and now long-since ex) wife to her hometownish region.  (Happy birthday to her, by the way.)

I was staying in a motel for a while, without any transportation (yes, to get there I flew on a commercial plane- with knives and a straggler bullet that I found later) and having nothing much to do, I walked around the area.

Most of the time I spent exploring the woods in the area, following bear sign, hiding from ATVs, and finding strange relics and ruins, but I also discovered a gun store down the street.

I had looked around inside for a while and then left and started walking back to the motel.  Suddenly a cloudburst occurred.

An older man who had also just left the gun store stopped and asked if I would like a ride, and I accepted.  And then he gave me a warning.  He told me that the gun store's owner was a former cop and that a lot of the customers who frequented the store were cops or former cops, so I should be very careful what I said in the store.  A warning?  And I hadn't spoken a word to anyone while in there, other than a "no thanks... I'm just looking"

This was back when I still believed there were probably some "good cops" out there.  Back before I was "online" and before I ever really spoke up about anything.

I thanked him for the warning, and never went in that store again.  Even back then I knew the type I didn't need to risk being around.

-

And please don't forget.

Libertarians protecting people from themselves?

"In a libertarian society, prisons would likely be privatized, but the system would bear little resemblance to today’s prisons; the only people in prison would be violent criminals likely to strike again and people who refused to compensate their victims." ~ Dr. Mary Ruwart (From this newsletter)

In a free society there would likely be no "laws" prohibiting people from being adequately armed, nor from defending themselves (and others) and their property.  

The "repeat offender" would not be expected to have a long career.  Or life.  You can only beat the odds for so long, and when the odds are stacked against you so massively, "for so long" turns out to be very short, indeed.

The only real excuse for a prison in a free society would be to protect unrepentant thieves and thugs from their next victim.  That translates into actually protecting them from themselves.

But wait.  Most of us accept that it is wrong to protect people from themselves, in just about every instance.  So that would mean a free society has no place for prisons.

-

And please don't forget.

Kent's Top Ten List of Cat Names

#10 Fluffy der Litterslinger

#9 Rip Climbcurtain

#8 Whiskers Handbiter

#7 Sleepy Dotchaser

#6 Pukey McHackenbarf

#5 Thing Tut

#4 Fuzzy Lickbottom

#3 Claws McShredder

#2 Hissy Nosetickle

And the #1 cat name that I will never be permitted to give to one of my cats:

                  Spastic O'Speedbump

(Dogs, too)

-

And please don't forget.

Ariel Castro promises Amanda Berry a "fair trial"

The next time some flag-waving "patriot" gets red in the face over Edward Snowden or his Russian asylum, ask them this question:  Why isn't Amanda Berry being pursued by US authorities and being forced to seek temporary asylum in Russia?

After all, Berry did the exact same thing that Snowden did: she reported the crimes of a criminal.  But in her case, only one criminal (or is it two?).  Snowden reported the crimes of thousands of criminals.  Shouldn't the "White House" have offered to give Berry a "fair trial" like it offered Snowden?  Or, would it have been more similar to have Ariel Castro be the one offering Berry the deal?  Why did Castro end up the one sentenced to prison instead of the whistleblower who reported him?

Supporting the prosecution and persecution of Snowden is the moral equivalent of seeking the same treatment for every other crime victim.  Because yes, Edward Snowden is also a victim of the crimes he reported, just as Amanda Berry was a victim with the other 2 women who were enslaved alongside her.

So why isn't Ariel Castro- the criminal- offering Amanda Berry- his whistle-blowing victim- a "fair trial", just like the various and sundry spokesvermin of the US Fedgov- the criminals- are offering Edward Snowden- the whistle-blowing victim- a "fair trial"?

Oops. I forgot.  The difference is just who the criminal happens to be.

Double standards disgust me, and this is a big one.  Victims should never be the ones put through the ringer of the so-called "justice system".

-

And please don't forget.

.

"Thinking is too hard!"

It is so much easier to be an emotionally-driven "patriot" waving that federal flag, squealing about "The USA!", and hating everyone who seems to show a hint of the "Man behind the Curtain" than it is to actually think things through.

Yes, I've known this for a very long time, and was guilty of it myself years ago.  But the recent events of the Bradley Manning injustice and the Edward Snowden fiasco really brought it home.  Well, it was the reactions of so many "patriots" that really brought it home.

It reminds me of a bunch of angry baboons- ruled by their aggressive emotions, and loyal to the troop "leaders" no matter what they are doing.  It's really sad.  Humans should be smarter than this.  We have brains.  Use them.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Free-market roads concept possible

Free-market roads concept possible

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 28, 2013.  First of the neutered columns.)

Are you under the impression that free market roads would be impossible, or at least impossibly complicated?

Then I have good news for you.

There are many possible ways for roads to be provided in a free society, even assuming unfettered technology wouldn't make roads obsolete.

Business owners could voluntarily join forces to provide roads and bridges that service their area so that customers could reach them comfortably. Neighbors could band together voluntarily to service the roads they use to get where they need to go. Companies could spring up to provide roads for a fee on your car insurance, or in some similar way. There could be toll road companies that bill you monthly for your use of their roads. You don't think road use is currently free, do you?

You'll still pay to use the road, but there will be accountability. The advantages of that should be obvious.

Privately owned roads had better be good, since the owner could be liable for any damage to your person or property due to poor maintenance or other road hazards like snow, ice, or tumbleweeds. Restitution would be a powerful incentive. Still, potholes happen.

Cars in a free society would probably be better at avoiding or dealing with problems than those we now drive. Perhaps they will automatically avoid that pothole to prevent the impact completely. If this fails and your car is damaged anyway, the road's owner may be able to recover some portion of the restitution he pays you from the car's manufacturer because of this malfunction.

Perhaps cars would immediately contact a database to report a road hazard, and its exact coordinates, so that other drivers (or their cars) could be alerted to avoid it, and repair crews could be dispatched.

If someone refuses to pay, either for use of the road or for damages from flawed maintenance, arbitration could be sought.

There could still be patrols to make sure no one is driving dangerously, but they would never have authority above any other individual, and would be held accountable if they violate your rights; they and their employer would be personally liable for any abuse or harm you suffered at their hands.

I can't go into every possibility even I can think of in a column this short, and the solutions might be completely different, anyway. In a free society there wouldn't be a "one-size-fits-all" way to provide roads. Anyone would be free to experiment and compete with roads he found inadequate in some way. How might you do it, if you had the opportunity, without coercion?

.

The Bradley Manning verdict- irony in action

Let's engage in some far-out fantasy for a moment and pretend that there is such a thing as "treason" or such a person as a "traitor" in relation to a "country".

Yeah, I did warn you that this is fantasy.

In such an imaginary scenario, the only reason the government of the US existed was because of the Constitution.  The Constitution created it from nothing.

The Constitution was the government that those so inclined were loyal to.  Not the president, congress, Supreme Court, generals, "superior" officers, bureaucrats, or "laws".  Not even "the country".  Any orders or "laws" that violated the Constitution were "treason" and the person issuing those orders, a "traitor".

So, when a person took an oath to uphold, support, or defend the Constitution of The United States (as opposed to America), that person was swearing loyalty to the US.  Whether or not that is a good thing is a subject for another day.

So Bradley Manning took that oath, and is now being punished under the pretext that he violated it, for upholding it.  For being honorable enough to knowingly risk his life, liberty, and property by doing the right thing.  Because, by his actions he exposed the evil deeds of those who violated their identical oaths, but who were doing so in a way that others (their "superiors" and "patriotic Americans") wanted them to.  And for this he is being called the "traitor", when he is the only one, between him and his accusers and persecutors, to whom that word can't apply in any way.  The same goes for Edward Snowden.

Those calling for Manning's head on a platter are seriously confused.  They mistake the criminals who violated their oaths for the good guys "serving their country", and the guy who actually honored his unwise oath for the "traitor" deserving of harsh punishment.  The actual bad guys are being confused for the good guys by a purposely confused population of illiterates who can't think past their emotionalism.

Well, confused or just plain evil.  Just which it is will be exposed by their words or actions in the next few days.

-

And please don't forget.