2800

This is blog post #2800.  And about seven years worth of writing.

My very first post to this blog was made on September 3, 2006, and my first "real" post was written on September 5, 2006 (the previous posts were mostly attempts to figure out how to use the blog set-up).  Wow!  Never did I think I'd keep blogging this long.

The origins of this blog probably seem silly to most of you.  After all, it was in connection with my presidential campaign.  I've grown beyond such things since then.  Although, some people might have considered my admonition "Don't vote- but if you still feel the need to vote for someone, vote for me rather than throwing it away on someone else" to be a "not serious" campaign strategy from the first.

I almost ended the blog when I stopped actively campaigning (mostly due to conflicts and lack of familial support, and the potential for someone "at home" being a source of embarrassment- I've never really explained the reasons, and I'm not going to now beyond that).   I actually passed several "finish lines" over the years.  At one point I thought I'd probably stop after 100 posts.  (What more could I say after that?)  Then I thought I'd stop after one year.  Or two.  Or when I hit 1000 posts.  Now I realize I will keep on writing this blog until I have nothing more to say, or until no one reads it anymore.  Or until economic reality requires me to shut up about things that might make me unemployable.

Looking back over the years I see a lot of changes in my personal attitudes.  I hope that all the changes have been for the better, and toward a more complete understanding and acceptance of liberty.  I hope I am a better person because of this journey.

I am also reminded of some good times and some terrible times in my personal life.  When I read the things I wrote during those times, even when I never publicly spoke about them, the memories are triggered.  I remember what I was thinking and feeling.  I remember some times of despair and some times of great hope.

And, through it all, I understand that liberty is the right course.  Not only for myself, but for whoever might consider me their worst enemy.  I only get the liberty I am willing to respect in others- if even that.  But it's a path that is worth it.  It has proved that to me in so many ways, time after time.

I hope you experience that as well.

-

I also wish to send out a big "Thank you so much!" to all of you who have sent donations to help me continue this blog for this long!  I seriously wouldn't have been able to do this if not for your help and support.  Your donations are not only a huge financial help, but a powerful psychological boost as well.  Thanks again!

.

A libertarian I just met...

In case you missed the news, I just got back from a weekend camping trip.  (Isn't it nice to be able to have blog posts automatically show up during an absence?)

As I was taking down the tent, this little scorpion was disturbed from his hiding place.  Apparently he had been taking shelter under the floor of the tent.  I didn't mind- and was glad he didn't choose a boot or shoe to hide in, as they like to do.

It made me wish more people were like that scorpion.  As long as I didn't attack him, he didn't attack me.  We each went on about our lives unharmed by the other.

Kind of sad to think a scorpion is better company than some people.

.

An armed society is a polite society

An armed society is a polite society

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 2, 2013.)

Those who want to do more to violate the right of every human to carry whatever kind of weapon they choose, openly or concealed as they see fit, everywhere they go, without ever asking permission of anyone, have all manner of emotional pleas at their disposal. And their scenarios always fail when exposed to reality.

Just before Christmas last year, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) reacted to the suggestion of having armed guards in government schools by whining “Is this the answer; that America should become an armed camp?”

I admit it- I laughed. Obviously she has never spent time in an armed camp- other than being surrounded by her automatic-weapons-bearing security detail, I mean.

But I have. Many times. And it was wonderful and peaceful. If you have never been to a mountain man rendezvous or some similar event, you wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Everyone is armed with multiple "historical" (and still lethal) firearms, and it's probable everyone also has weapons of modern design either hidden on their person or in camp.

People there are friendly. Strangers are openly welcomed, without fear. Disputes are cordial, or at least resolved before they get out of control. No one stole from anyone at any of the events I attended, even though valuables were left unattended in plain sight. No one attacked anyone.

All rules are by unanimous consent, as are all fees, and agreed to beforehand and not changed. While there are those whose "job" it is to arbitrate disputes, prevent fights, and make sure the rules are followed, I almost never saw them doing anything "official". If someone does break a rule, they are asked to either stop or leave. No one uses force on them nor cages them. The knowledge that if they caused a real problem they would not be able to recruit a helpless victim takes the bluster away.

Author Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying "An armed society is a polite society", and he is right.

I only wish every American could experience living for a while in a universally armed camp. All it would take is a week of such an experience and almost no one- other than anti-liberty, ideology driven politicians and citizen disarmament advocates like Feinstein and her gang- would ever again want to give up such a life.

No one would ever be able to propose or enforce another anti-gun "law" without being sent packing to North Korea where their ideas are politically correct (while still wrong).

.

Intra-gang violence- The Hasan death penalty

So, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was given the "death penalty" for the Ft. Hood murders.  As I have said before, I am against such a punishment, for several reasons.  But, unlike most cases, this one doesn't pluck at my heartstrings too much.  I see this case strictly as an internal affair.  A gang member turned on others in his gang, and the gang "leadership" is dealing with it in a violent manner.  Gang members kill each other all the time, and my main concern is that they don't start killing people outside their gangs.  Why should I be surprised or outraged?  I am not involved with that gang, nor do I support it in any real way.

And, no, I am not just referring to the "military" as the gang- the entire idea of "government" is the gang; the "military" is simply one part of it.

One thing I find ironic is that those gang leaders aren't accepting their share of guilt in the murders.  Whoever the evil idiot was who decided that members of the military, on a military base, "needed" to be unarmed is at least 50% responsible for every murder after the first one.  Sure, a psycho could kill one person before a universally armed populace could react and stop him, but he could not likely kill 13.  Nope, he had lots of help.

I would hope that such overwhelming stupidity is limited to government militaries, and would find no support among militias.  

.

Too hard on cops?

You probably think I am too hard on cops.  I assure you, I'm not nearly hard enough.  They are where the rubber meets the road, where tyranny is concerned.  No one else on the side of The State matters- there is no other meaningful enemy of liberty.

You can live in an area "Ruled" by Hitler's crueler brother, filled with counterfeit "laws" until the law pollution is so bad that everything you want to do is forbidden, and everything you'd rather not do is mandatory, but unless there are thugs willing to enforce those "laws" against you, it doesn't matter.  You still could be free and never even care what any of those "laws" say.

Tyranny and oppression begins and ends with enforcers.

.

Magic words and enforcers

I am not one of those who believes you can memorize some magical script to use against cops; an incantation which will banish them back into the shadows of Hell faster than a vampire faced with a cross made of garlic raised on holy water.  But it can be educational to think about things you could say to a cop to show the true nature of "law enforcement".

Imagine being stopped for going faster than the arbitrary "speed limit", or not "stopping sufficiently" at a stop sign, with no harm done to anyone.  Imagine saying to the enforcer:

"Who is the individual you are alleging I have harmed?  And where is this individual, and how has he been harmed?  (wait for ridiculous response)  If you have no answer, yet you insist on continuing this encounter, you are the bad guy.  You have become nothing more than an armed robber."

No, I don't imagine that would have the effect it should.  Still, it cuts right to the heart of the matter.  No victim- no foul.  Where is your accuser?  Is it the cop?  If so, does this mean he is the one you are accused of victimizing?  Is it "The State"?  Then I want to face The State and have him (her?) accuse me in person.  Not through a representative, but one to one.

Magic words don't normally "work", unless by "work" you mean to get you to consider the truth.

.

"Tax"-addict trolls?

A few days ago I got into a discussion with someone online.  Shocking!  I know.  Anyway, the subject was originally "border control" and "immigration", but when I asked a couple of test questions about that I got a bizarre response that went on about tariffs and such.  I suggested the person was talking about slavery (importing people) rather than about immigration control.  And then I got the response I reproduce here, along with my replies.

"You are taxed based upon the annual value of your work (just as a simple example). You, I, and everyone are nothing more than a commodity." To whom? Those who believe they are owed something for nothing- a "piece of the action" for their protection racket. When forced to do work, where someone else takes a percentage between 0% and 100% of your labor/time/money, you are a slave. It's not a matter of not being a slave to someone else until the percentage stolen from you reaches some magical percentage. And, yes, "taxation" IS theft. Nothing else.

"Human Labor is a commodity." Yes. And it belongs to the person who labors, no one else.

"You mistake that for slavery." I'm not the one making the mistake here.

"I assure you that is not the case." You can "assure" me all day. You are wrong, either unwittingly, or you are lying.

 "Anytime you work for money, you are selling yourself for a set time at a certain price." Yes. And that is fine as long as it is mutually consensual. 

 "Looking at the movement of people between nations is just as taxable and prohibit-able as the importing of certain goods and services." Just because thieves and thugs can get away with committing an act doesn't make it right. It's like claiming that babies are just as rapable as grown women. Theft is theft; slavery is slavery; wrong is wrong- and dressing them up in fancy StateSpeak doesn't change the foundational truth of the acts you are advocating.
  

I have heard that "government" agencies employ trolls to try to attempt to put a positive spin on the disgusting things done by various "government" goons. Hmmm.

Seriously, don't you think this guy sounds like a paid shill for The State?

.

72+ Types of terrorists

So, supposedly the morons who call themselves "government" have a list of 72 types of people they consider to be "terrorists".  Isn't that special.

"We are surrounded by TERRORISTS!!"

Of course, being able to read and remember for more than a few seconds, unlike the fearmongering collectivists of The State, I notice there are a lot of repeats and overlaps on that list.  Gotta pad the numbers and make sure no one feels left out, ya know.

The sad thing is they left off whole categories of terrorists.  I feel the need to help.

73. Those who feel a "law" can make it OK to rob, kidnap, torture, murder, or otherwise harm people who have done nothing aggressive to anyone else.

74. Those who kill people over a plant or two.

75. Those who gather in groups designated with letters.  Examples are BATFE, IRS, CIA, NSA, FBI, SCOTUS, CONUS, etc.

76. Anyone who is so afraid of those around them that they feel it is necessary to spy on them, and then lie about it or otherwise try to make their terroristic actions seem "legal" or "legitimate".


(H/T)

The disease of "Compliance"

People are just too compliant.  I include myself in that criticism.

The first time some pervert insisted on a urine test in exchange for a job offer, he should have been laughed at, and if he laid a hand on the person in his insistence- punched.  Now that too many people comply in order to have a job, those who would refuse will end up unemployable (in many cases, in their chosen career).

The first time some coward told someone to leave the gun at home, or with the sheriff, in order to go about your business he should have been ignored.  And shot if he tried to take the gun.  Now, in many locations, there is almost nowhere you can go off your own property without violating someone's slaughter-enabling zone.

The first time some police department set up a "sobriety checkpoint", the offending officers should have never made it home alive.  Now the slightest hesitation to submit is seen as a threat to "officer safety" and can be dealt with in a lethal manner, and your death will be "within departmental policy".  Oh, and your murderers will be rewarded and promoted, and your neighbors will think of you as the bad guy.

Normal people have enabled the death of liberty by being too polite and too compliant to unreasonable demands, and now we are ALL paying for it- while still being too compliant, so that our kids will have it worse than we do.

When will enough be enough?

.

Libertarianism strictly individual philosophy

Libertarianism strictly individual philosophy

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 26, 2013)

Commentator Michael Lind called it "The question libertarians just can’t answer": "If [the libertarian] approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it? Why are there no libertarian countries?"

It seems Mr. Lind doesn't understand what he's asking; he certainly doesn't understand libertarianism. That's a common problem with criticisms of libertarianism.

There can't be a true "libertarian country" because libertarianism is strictly individual, just as is any philosophy or way of life. You can't have a libertarian country because a "country" has no mind, opinions, or philosophy- those things belong to the individual. A "country" is an intangible concept, not a physical entity. When you try to base a country upon any one philosophy, you are pigeonholing everyone who lives there into one cramped box, and your concept inevitably breaks down because a huge percentage of the residents are being forced to live in a way that they don't want. A way they may even find reprehensible, repugnant, and wrong.

Good or bad, there are only individuals. A country can not initiate force or commit theft. Only individuals can. Each individual makes that choice for himself, and blaming it on the abstract collective is a failed attempt to avoid responsibility.

A State, or rather those representing themselves as that State, can either leave individuals to live as libertarians, or can try to force them to behave as collectivists of one sort or another by regulating or prohibiting consensual, non-aggressive behavior, and by violating their right of association and property rights. Individuals who would prefer to live free will always find a way.

However, there have been countries where the State mostly stayed out of the way and let individuals live a libertarian life: early America and medieval Iceland are two popular examples.

Even today most people live a largely libertarian life in their daily interactions with others. Not only here, but all across the world. Most individuals seek to trade for what they want rather than steal it. Most people try to reach an agreement with others rather than to beat them into submission. Most people will "live and let live" as long as they don't see a "one-size-fits-all" order being imposed on them and on everyone around them.

Perhaps this means the world is mostly libertarian already, if you ignore the professional political realm. And, it is probably better for your mental health and happiness if you do ignore that realm as much as possible.

-

And please don't forget.

.

The powderkeg of "troops"

Are individuals in America better off that there are US troops all over the planet?  Do troops really help "the people"?

Think about it.

Was Germany better off by having and supporting the Nazi troops?  Or, in the long run was the normal, average German made less safe and less prosperous because of "the troops"?  (And don't bother trying to misuse Godwin's Law on me- I'm on to that game.)

The only ones helped by "the troops" are those who work for that gang of thugs called "government".  Everyone else is harmed.  They may think they are benefiting, but only until consequences catch up to them all.  At that time the veil is ripped away.

Abuses will have consequences.  It will be painful.  The longer those abuses and violations are allowed to continue, and the worse they are allowed to get, the more harsh those consequences will eventually be.  If you "support the troops" you are ensuring a dire and agonizing future for your kids or grandkids.  Those chickens WILL come to roost, sooner or later.  The future can't be held off forever.  And the later it is, the worse it will be for those who were seen to be complicit by "supporting the troops".  Or those who are mistakenly assumed to have done so, because of an accident of geography and birth.

If you really "support the troops", demand of the congressvermin they be brought home or ask them, individually, to quit.  Anything else is just stacking more black powder next to the campfire.

.

The heart of the matter

Here's a diamond from Kn@ppster:

Governments are nothing more or less than gigantic criminal conspiracies, overgrown street gangs with no claims whatsoever to legitimacy. They are funded by theft and the basis of all their operations is aggression. They're no more entitled to keep their activities secret than any other gaggle of murderers, rapists and thieves is.

Yep.  And the blame lies with each and every individual who tries to hide behind "the job".  It's not someone else's fault- if you have a government "job", don't point fingers.

.

Striving to be free-lance bully free, but enabling the rest

Seen on the animated sign at a local McDonald's: "Clovis... striving to be bully free" .

Really?

So, "Clovis" will be rewarding kids who stand up to bullies- even if they use violence in response to the bully's threats and violence?

"Clovis" will be firing every cop and the county commissioners and city council (or whatever they have)?

"Clovis" will stop fawning over the locally-stationed members of the US's aggressive, empire-building, foreign terrorism-committing military?

No?  Then "Clovis" isn't "striving" very hard at all.

In fact, I think bullies are just fine to "Clovis", as long as they aren't freelancing.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Like, the dumbest idea ever!

Continuity of government is like an emergency surgery to save the tumor and let the patient die.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Ouch.

If anyone would like to help me out financially, this would be an excellent time.  My bank account is in the red.  Thanks.

Update: Crisis averted, thanks to you.  Feel free to donate or subscribe anyway.  :)

.

Bradley Manning in Orwellistan

Heroism is criminal in the empire of cowardice.

Orwell would be unsurprised at this alternate version of his observation (if it was truly his to begin with).  It's just the other side of the coin.

How truly bizarre that when I went to search for the original Orwell quote, "Truth is treason in the empire of lies", almost every search result was from a "conservative" site- many of them "Tea Party" related.  Yet, who is most angry at Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden for revealing truth?  "Conservatives" and those in positions of political power*.

-

*(Those in positions of political power are ALWAYS "conservatives", since they wish to "conserve" that power and keep those positions available to fill.  Just as those in positions of political power are ALWAYS "progressives" since they always push their new violations on the basis of it being positive "progress".  Both are evil.)

-

And please don't forget.

.

It's official: heroism is a punishable offense

So, heroism is now officially punishable by 35 years in a cage.  Vital information to know.

Maybe that's why complicit State vermin, such as cops, shy away from heroism as a matter of course.  It takes a special coward to be a part of that "system".

I wonder how many true heroes this knowledge will stop, though.  Most will just find another way.  The "law-flingers" and enforcers are tightening the noose around their own necks without seeing what they are doing.  Oh well.  You can't teach the truly stupid.

-

And please, don't forget.

.

Doing it for the love of the thing

If "government" doesn't do certain things, by forcing people to do them, or by funding those things through "taxation", they just won't get done.  Right?

Well, no.

One of the "things I do" is orphaned and/or injured animal rescue.  I have done it since I was a pre-teen.  It pays nothing, and in fact, sometimes costs considerably more (in food, medicine, supplies, and occasionally vet bills) than I can afford.  And those who find the animals that need to be rescued almost never think of helping defray the expense*- and I don't ask because I'd rather they not hesitate to call me for help when it's needed.  I'll find a way, somehow.

Because it matters to me, I do it anyway.

In fact, I just took on a new rescue Monday.

How it is possible that I do this without being coerced, or without seeking "government" subsidies?  I thought this was supposed to mean these necessary functions would go neglected.  I truly believe people are better than that.  Sure, as long as someone is willing to use theft and coercion to make something happen, there will be those doing it who otherwise wouldn't.  What good is that for anyone?

I'd rather see people filling a need because they want to, than because they see it as a way to get (stolen) money or (illegitimate) power.  But if they can get rich doing what they love, without theft or fraud (redundant, I know), and even if it affords them a certain amount of power, as long as it isn't based upon aggression or threats, then they can still fill a place in the world that I will not complain about.  I might even envy them a little on weak days.

I take pleasure knowing that art, charity, creativity, and all the other small good stuff will still be a part of the world even when there is no gun in the room forcing anyone to pursue it.  Don't you?

- 

*It has happened exactly twice in all the years.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Libertarians’ heroes all-too-human

Libertarians’ heroes all-too-human

My Clovis News Journal column for July 19, 2013.

Just like anyone else, most libertarians have heroes, both real and fictional, who inspire them through traits we share, or wish we shared.

Libertarians' heroes are also all-too-human. They are flawed and don't always manage to do the right thing- the libertarian thing. Very few people can always avoid initiating force. Most people will sometimes violate private property rights. Yet, there is something that can be learned from just about anyone.

Captain Malcolm Reynolds from the science fiction television series "Firefly", and its movie sequel "Serenity", is a particular favorite of mine. Yet he does throw the first punch on occasion, and he is an admitted thief. At least he usually seems to avoid stealing privately owned property. He keeps his word, rights the wrongs he is made aware of committing, and stands up for those who need help. Right and wrong matter more to him than legal or illegal.

The character "V" from "V for Vendetta" is an even more flawed hero- if he is a hero. He brings down a tyrannical regime, but admits he is a "monster". While he targeted for revenge mainly those (or the minions they sent) who were guilty of war crimes against their own subjects, he also kidnapped and caged an innocent person against her will "for her own good". She eventually makes peace with him over this, but it was still wrong for him to do so.

Han Solo from the "Star Wars" movies is possibly the most libertarian character in that series. He is called a smuggler by The Empire, which is just another name for a free market supplier. Unless you count the "Han shot first" revision in one of the latest re-releases, he always fought in defense.  (I have been corrected- "Han shot first" was the original, and the revision changed that.  But Greedo was holding Han at gun-point, so it was still self defense.  Greedo had it coming ...) 

Paladin from "Have Gun, Will Travel" was generally on the side of human rights, and only a time or two worked for the local protection racket. He usually sought the libertarian solution rather than the more expedient, and expected, coercive short cut. And he was chivalrous.

The real life heroes to many libertarians could include Clint Eastwood, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, or Robert A. Heinlein. Each has good and bad points, while being mostly libertarian. One danger with real people is that they tend to be less predictable than fictional characters (thus not as easily pigeonholed), and more likely to disappoint if you place their pedestal too high.

Fortunately, you aren't trapped by what others do. Try to mimic the good, learn from the failures, don't idolize, and always think for yourself.

-

And please don't forget.

.

"I submitted- so should you"

"I was raped, so you need to just shut up and cooperate with your rapist, too!"

That's what I hear when immigrants who jumped through all the "legal hoops" to get into the former America claim that "illegal immigrants" should have done the same.

That's what I hear when gun owners, who have begged permission from The State to be "allowed" to carry their gun, jump on a gun owner who recognizes there is no legitimate authority to violate his rights in any way.

It's what I hear when "drivers" refuse to support a person caught for "driving without a license".

It's what I hear anytime someone supports the violation of another person because that person didn't submit to the same abuses that others submitted to.

You would never do this... right?

Seems a cowardly way to live, if you asked me.

-

And please don't forget.