Parental failing

I have spoken about my youngest daughter's unfortunate desire to attend the government school across the street.  Well, those chickens are coming home to roost.

I fought, was outnumbered, and defeated.

She went to kindergarten last year, even though she was technically too young to start.  Her mom (and all my relatives) encouraged her to go, and her mom actually sort of pushed her into going last year.  "Here, take my child!"  She loved kindergarten, so she expected our daughter to have the exact same experience.

She did well, but because of her age, and the fact that the teacher said she thought my daughter would benefit emotionally and socially from repeating kindergarten (and because her mom thought it sounded like a wonderful idea), she is back in kindergarten again this year.

My daughter liked her teacher enough that she wanted to be in her class again this year.  I don't have anything in particular against her teacher, although it does bother me that in this government school it is official policy to show the kids religious programming and have them pray for absent classmates.  Yes, that bothers me.

But this isn't about that.

Before my daughter started kindergarten she was rapidly learning to read and write.  She would try to write words and ask me how to spell things all the time.  She liked to try to read and would participate in bedtime story reading with me.  She was to the point where she could actually read (nearly) entire kids' books to me.

But, no more.

Since she started school, her desire to learn has taken a nose-dive.

Now she never tries to write anything.  She never reads except by accident.

And yet, her mom and my government school-worshiping family members don't notice this change- probably because I am the one around her the most.  And it bothers me.  I feel like I am failing her- but I know this is a fight I will not win.  Because, even though my daughter often says she'd rather not go to school anymore (admittedly, mostly when it's time to go to bed or wake up), the resolve of the other "people of influence" is only stronger.

I see school doing the same damage to her that I see in so many others, and that I don't even know how I avoided.  School was a living nightmare for me, and I still hate it with a red-hot passion- I wish I had never been forced to attend, since I learned nothing positive from "class" after I learned to read, but only by skipping class and reading in the library.

.

Why wages don't rise as fast as prices do

(Sorry for the quality of the picture.)

"Time's Up" flag Wikipedia page

OK, so there is no such thing.  But I think there should be.  The design has gotten enough attention beyond what I do to promote it that I think it deserves a page.  (Of course I would think that, right?)

However, I don't feel like making one.  I'm still bitterly disappointed that Wikipedia deleted the page about me (which I had nothing to do with and simply discovered by accident one day- and it already had a "take down notice" attached).

Well, maybe "bitterly disappointed" is going overboard.  I was shocked anyone thought I needed a page- and apparently Wikipedia agreed with me.

"Time's Up" is a different story.

Anyway, if anyone feels like making a Wikipedia page on the "Time's Up" flag and/or design, I'll link to it on the blog.

.

War by any name is still as painful

War by any name is still as painful

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 6, 2013.)

Let's imagine a world where you are the ruler of a town. All the people in your town are encouraged to get all their news and information from people connected to you. There are plenty of other sources of information, but the people have been convinced the news they get from "official sources" is more reliable, even when it should be obvious that's not always the case.

You also have the help of highly visible people who comment on the information you release, to the exclusion of everything else, to make it seem as if yours is the only perspective out there. Anything else would be "aiding the enemy" or a "fringe opinion".

Far away from your town is a small, insignificant village run by another guy very much like you. "Sir Ya", has done some nasty things to the people in his town; it seems to go with the job. But, since you have decided you need to go to war with this particular thug right now, he is the thug of the moment to anyone who will listen. Everyone listens.

You eagerly, and with grave expression, report on, and the commentators pass along, any and all evil acts this other guy is suspected of committing.

Of course, the information you release is slanted against Sir Ya and is carefully calculated to make you look better than you are.

The other guy has used "chemical weapons" on the people of his town, so you propose to go to war and kill many of the survivors- using chemicals like gun powder- to "save" them. The irony will be completely lost on the people of your town, and on the popular commentators you depend upon to spread your narrative.

People don't remember the rumored, and ultimately imaginary, "weapons of mass destruction" or baby-eating from every past lead-up to war, and this makes your scheme easier to pull off. You will succeed in getting your war, one way or another.

Sure it's crazy, but the people in your town won't see it because of how you have slanted the information they are exposed to. The same old story could be told of every time you and your predecessors decided to sacrifice the children of your townspeople for some political capital and to ensure a "legacy".

You'll call your war something like "humanitarian aid" or "rescuing his people". It makes the coming death and destruction more popular with the townsfolk. It makes the returning broken bodies and minds of the town's kids something to revere and honor rather than regret.

.

Breaking what they've got - Demanding more

If you learn nothing else from the phony-baloney "government shut-down" melodrama, learn this:

If the current amounts of control over the country wielded by these insane bureaucrats has inconvenienced you (it hasn't touched me), or worse, shouldn't you see that giving them even more control over your life (ObamaCare, "gun control", etc.) is the most stupid thing you could possibly do?  This just proves they can NOT be trusted with even the smallest control over anything of importance.  And they keep demanding more?  Ha!

Take your life back.

Live life in spite of bad guys

Attacks on your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and property are coming- just as they always have.  Make no mistake about that.

On one hand it is silly to waste too much time worrying about what this or that puppetician is doing, or what "laws" may surround you.  They are all attacks aimed at you- be warned and be ready.

On the other hand, it is good to know from which direction you are likely to be attacked next.  Sticking your head in the sand doesn't really help you much.

Just don't get so wrapped up in worrying about the professional thugs that you miss out on life.  That would hand the bad guys a victory you can't afford.

.

Sour grapes?

People have suggested that my opposition to aggression and theft, particularly when committed by people calling themselves "government" or "The State", is just a case of "sour grapes"; that if I had chosen a different career path- one that resulted in me having a "government job" of some sort- I wouldn't be libertarian. Because of the trajectory of my life I would refuse to see "taxation" as theft and "laws" as either unnecessary or counterfeit.

Possibly.

My opinion doesn't alter reality, though.

I would hope I am not so shallow that I would let that stop me from seeing reality.  And, there are several things I was once in favor of that I rejected due to thinking the matter through rather than sticking with what I liked.

It's not as if lots of other people who have (or once had) "tax addict jobs" don't see what's really going on- it just makes acting on that knowledge more painful.  Yet many do it anyway.  Perhaps they are better than I am.

As it stands, I don't consider getting a government job, even though it could be justified on the basis of being a mole or a monkeywrencher.  And, I really would prefer if everyone who works for any "government" anywhere would quit and find an honest job.

If that is "sour grapes", so be it.

.

"Time's Up" - new version

I re-worked my "famous" Time's Up design just a bit- more detail, larger design, more anatomically correct snake (the old snake always reminded me more of a boa), larger words.

What do you think?

"I'm packing my bags and leaving you to starve without me!"

Let's pretend I am an abusive spouse and parent.  I steal other family members' stuff and break their things and make huge messes.  And I insist that they would die on their own without me.

Sure, I sometimes settle squabbles between family members, but I always do so to my benefit- my interests come first.

And, I do some chores around the house- but I make a big fuss about it when I do.  "Look how essential I am!" I crow.  "Only I can do this the right way!"

But, I keep making a mess of the family budget, driving everyone deeper and deeper in debt, and I throw a hissy fit when I don't get all the money I want.  So one day I declare I am going to leave the family.

But instead of leaving, by any rational definition, all I do is lock a few rooms in the house and say no one can enter until I get my way, and I stop doing anything helpful- except the things that would actually get me kicked to the curb by a family who realizes how utterly useless I really am.

But I don't stop being abusive, nor do I stop stealing, breaking stuff, or making big messes.  I even still insist on settling family squabbles so I can continue to guide things to my favor.

Welcome to the "government shutdown".

.

"Exchange"

I keep seeing comments about the "health care exchanges" (I know that's not the "real" name) that I suppose ObamaCare imposed.

To "exchange" means to trade, so I suppose a "health care exchange" is where you trade away your health care for... what?  For the opposite of health care?

.

Teens buying guns

There was an item I saw in the news a while back that stuck in my mind due to its absurdity and the fact it's another example of "if they can get you to ask the wrong question..."

Should teens be permitted to buy guns after getting a background check?

You know my answer to that question- the imposition of a background check on anyone is unforgivable.  As is any imposed restriction on buying or selling any kind of gun to anyone (stores have the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason).

But it also just illustrates the ignorance- no, the stupidity of the anti-liberty bigots.  Teens buy guns without background checks now.  In fact, it's the only way they can, since "legitimate" stores can't sell to them.

So the sensible thing is to end the background checks so they at least have the option to buy from knowledgeable and responsible sources who'll possibly give them good information or instructions- whoever that may be.

.

Disassociation not always disrespect

Disassociation not always disrespect

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 30, 2013)

Many conflicts in society could be eliminated simply by respecting everyone's right of association- the right to not have anyone imposed upon you. It is about the most fundamental human right there is, and one of the most often violated.

Discrimination isn't automatically a bad thing. I assume you discriminate among the things you eat. A shiny, red apple might be preferred over a ripe banana, and the banana might be chosen before an orange. Everyone has their own criteria and preferences.

This is the reasoning behind the signs in some businesses, which say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". That right doesn't need to be "reserved"; it is always there.

Bakery owners who don't wish to make cakes for gay weddings should never be forced to do so. Other potential customers could then decide whether or not to give their money to the business based upon this information.

Businesses could place "No Guns" signs on their door- so long as they are not incorporated, therefore not in partnership with government and required to operate within limits put in place by the Constitution- to keep away honest people with guns. (No one seriously believes such a sign will stop those who wish to rob or murder, do they?) And those who prefer to do business with companies which don't demand they be defenseless in the face of violent attack can choose to spend their money with shops which actually care more about their customers' safety than about making a dangerous political statement.

If there is a person in town whom you don't like, for any reason or no reason at all, no one should force you to be around that person. You are free to leave the park if they show up, or to cross the street to avoid them. No one should force you to buy from them or sell to them. Just don't complain when the shoe is on the other foot.

If a person refuses to associate with someone because of their skin color, sexual orientation, gender, political beliefs, religious ideology, appearance, odor, spoken language, or any reason at all, they are simply asserting their basic human right. If you disagree with their reason, you are free to speak your mind and refuse to associate with them in return.

Why a business owner would willingly choose to alienate a percentage of his potential customers bewilders me, unless he believes that by doing so he will please even more people who will then flock to spend their money with him. It is possible it could happen.

.

"It's not enough..."

If/when the forces of statism begin openly carrying out a war on lovers of liberty, there is only one way "we" can win.

It's not enough to kill the tyrant.

It's not enough to destroy the "government" that gave him power.

It's not enough to kill the Tributes sent, and sacrificed, to kill you.

You've got to destroy- kill utterly- the delusion of government in your own mind.  And help others do the same.  Otherwise the cancer will just come back.

.

Who's more angry?

Are libertarians "angry"?

Some are.  Are they more angry than statists?  Hardly.

Everyone has their own temperament.  Some people are naturally more stressed or relaxed or angry or happy or sad than others.  Everyone has their own personal level of angst (which probably contributes a lot to anger) that probably isn't going to change much with their external circumstances.  It seems people have a "pre-set" for that sort of thing.

I would guess I have about the same level of angst inside me now that I have always had- however, in general I am less angry at the "political world".  Back when I considered myself "conservative" I had a lot more "political anger" and frustration.  Now, I am more able to go with the flow and laugh at the silly antics of "politics".

I don't expect thugs and thieves to act like anything except what they are.  I get mad if I see them victimizing someone (or experience it myself) but I'm not surprised or shocked by their actions.  They are what they are.  That they justify their abuses through politics is irrelevant to me.

I suppose my anger has shifted to new targets.  I am working on that, too.

But, whichever direction I look I see people angry over "politics".  Their ideology doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the amount of anger.  But statists only seem to see the anger of "the other side"- however they define that at the moment- and it just usually means whoever disagrees with them and their plan to "fix" it all through coercion and theft.

I would say the most angry people I see would classify themselves as "liberal" or "conservative", because most people I see, angry or not, label themselves that way- but they apparently see it differently.  Either way, I'm not going to get angry over it.

.

Cells and "Nations"

Recently I saw someone try to defend the idea of "borders" by comparing them to a cell's membrane.

Nice try, but...

If "borders" have any legitimacy at all (which they don't) it would be to define the boundary between the body of counterfeit "laws" that are imposed on one area, and the body of counterfeit "laws" that are imposed on an adjacent area. That boundary should never be applied to people.

A cell is a real, physical thing. A "nation" is a glitch of the mind. It doesn't exist in reality, although people who believe in it will kill for their delusion.

The believers in "borders" try to make the case that one thing that is "right" over here, is "wrong" over here. (That's what I mean by counterfeit "laws".) Murder and rape are wrong everywhere and are pretty much recognized as wrong by the "Law"- even when people wearing the silly hat of "government" try to use euphemisms to excuse murder and rape as long as they are committed by agents of The State acting in their "official capacity". But carrying a gun is said to be "wrong" on one side of an imaginary line, and said to be "OK" on the other side. Same with smoking pot. An imaginary line can't make wrong right or right wrong. But that's all those "borders" are said to do. 

"Borders" are just lines in the sand devised to establish which group of thieving thugs are "legally" allowed to rob the people on either side. The trick of brainwashing the livestock into revering that imaginary line was quite a coup for the thieves. It made their "job" so much easier when the victims began to do most of the work for them.

.

Don't ignore the warning signs

In a recent discussion with someone, I finally had an awakening about their beliefs and asked "So, you don't believe in 'right' or 'wrong'?"

And the response I got was "Correct. I believe in like and do not like(.)  I believe in 'failed to produce the desired results'".

If that's the case, wouldn't that make the person a psychopath?  Yeah, I think people call that "utilitarianism", but what evil couldn't be justified under that notion?  Only those that "failed"?

He went on to say he believes in right and wrong only where science and math are concerned.  So, I take that to mean things like: 5 is the right answer to "2 + 3 = ?", or this rope is the wrong length to reach from here to there, or it's wrong to use up all your water right now, since it means you will die of thirst later and things of that nature, but not with regards to other questions?

Where do I go from there?

If right and wrong are meaningless to you with regards to human interactions, why would you ever debate something like this with a person like me?  And why would I ever voluntarily associate with you?  You might decide you would like to kill me, and feel your plan wouldn't fail.  That's all it would take for you to murder me.

Even if someone believes it is right to initiate force or to steal, they are easier for me to deal with, and more predictable to deal with safely, than the person who thinks such concepts are meaningless.  In my opinion.

.

"Stop & Rob"

I know someone who refers to convenience stores as the "Stop and Rob".

I think that name also applies equally well to cops on "traffic patrol".  It's all they do- they "stop" and "rob" travelers.

Don't fool yourself into believing that a traffic stop is anything other than an armed robbery.  You might like the results, but when you see the local "Stop & Rob" in action, you are witnessing a violation of fundamental human rights.

So, support your local individual Stop & Rob if it makes you happy, but don't pretend he's something other than what he is.

.

"Freedom isn't free"

Freedom isn't free. You have to earn it by giving up your addiction to "government".

Not just the parts of "government" you will admit kill freedom, but also the parts you like, which you pretend somehow "protect" freedom.  You know, the parts that only impact someone else's freedom- as far as you know.

Freedom and government are mutually exclusive.  Every bit of governing kills a bit of freedom.  Not only that, but every bit of government that is allowed to persist always grows.  If you do nothing freedom will automatically be replaced piece by piece by "government".  You must continually chop away at government to keep from losing ground, unless you manage to just get rid of the entire tumor of "government" once and for all.

I read something the other day:
"Conservatives want to keep the federal government open—we just want to shut down Obamacare."

That's precisely why I am not a "conservative".  I think it's extremely dishonest to claim "Hey, we don't want to cut out the whole cancerous tumor, just this one little microscopic bit of it."

That is the excuse of someone not willing to pay the price of freedom.

.

Forced sharing isn’t sharing

Forced sharing isn’t sharing

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 23, 2013)

Recently, in this column, I have been trying to illustrate concrete ways libertarianism works in real life, each and every day, sometimes for people who don't even realize they are behaving as libertarians.

The common thread should be obvious: it's not difficult to act in a libertarian manner. It's how almost all of us were taught to behave from our very earliest experiences with other people.

"Don't start fights." "Don't take what isn't yours." Those are good lessons and are the foundation of being a decent person- of being libertarian.

One lesson almost universally imposed on small children, though, is less helpful. That is "You have to share."

If you are given no choice in how your property is used by another person, it isn't "sharing".

It can be a considerate thing to decide to let someone else use your property. Usually. It can't be done under coercion or it isn't "sharing", no matter what the parents may call it. It needs to be a choice freely made, or it is worthless.

I suspect that parents often make this demand to keep the "have-not" kid quiet, not thinking of the long-term consequences.

If you know the other person will refuse to give your property back, or will damage it while using it, then refusing to share is the wiser choice. To teach children that they have no say in how their property is used is not a good lesson. Your teachings will cause more trouble later on, particularly if the child takes the idea to its logical conclusion. If they do, and decide that what applies to them also applies to everyone else, then you have a likely vandal or thief on your hands who will believe if they want it, someone owes it to them.

There is a lesson in the value of things, and it doesn't come by undermining ownership. Teaching kids to respect other people's property begins with respecting theirs. The forced "sharing" does teach a lesson, however, but that lesson is perverted.

We see the danger of this lesson all around us today. People grow up to believe they can be "generous" with other people's money. In their attempt to "share" they implement taxes and distribute welfare. If you really want to share, do it. If you must take other people's money to put toward your goal, you are not sharing.

It's not complicated; it's life. Just like every other aspect of libertarianism.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Choosing libertarianism

I didn't choose libertarianism; it chose me.

For someone who came to libertarianism along some other path, this might seem a strange statement.  It's true, though.  I didn't set out to "become libertarian".  I am what I am, and what I am turns out to be libertarian.

Sure, after I discovered that libertarianism exists (as more than just the "drugs, guns, and sex" that I had heard mentioned as "what libertarianism is") I was able to refine my views- it's funny how reading what those who came before you wrote will help that happen.  But even before I read "Lever Action" by L. Neil Smith, I was already more libertarian than most of the nationally famous "libertarians" you'll encounter.  I just didn't have a name for it, yet.

As I mentioned above, I had heard the term "libertarian" a few times over the years, but it was always in a dismissive way.  "Those crazy 'sex, drugs, and rock & roll' libertarians".  It was a caricature that bore no resemblance to the reality, and one that didn't interest me, but I never thought about it long enough to take a look for myself.  Before the internet I'm not sure how I ever would have found out the truth, without making more of an effort than my level of interest would have fueled.

But, however it happened, I'm glad it did.

.