Excuses, excuses.

I'm angry at myself right now.

I have come to realize I am the King of Excuses.

Do I make excuses for things I don't really want to do, or do I make excuses to keep from doing things I want to do but I'm afraid of trying because I am scared to succeed or fail?

Either way it makes me mad.

.

Rejecting people’s negative vortex

Rejecting people’s negative vortex

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 13, 2013)

Negativity is a real problem in a lot of people's lives.  If it's a sunny day they'll complain about sunburn or drought.  If it rains, that's no better because it ruins their plans.

But sometimes a person will be blamed for being negative when all they really did was reject someone else's negative outlook.  Don't mistake a person's rejection of your doom and gloom for negativity on their part.  They may be seeing a better way.

Libertarians face this phenomenon all the time.

Which is more negative: to wallow in imagined victimhood, or to tell people they have the power to run their own lives?  The apparent answer, judging by the response you'll get for pointing out the obvious, might surprise you.

For pointing out the negativity of the culture of helplessness and victimhood, and offering an uplifting alternative; for reminding people they don't have to wait for "laws" to change, or for politicians to lead them, but can start being more free right now; for insisting that voluntary choice is better than coercion, libertarians are condemned for being too "negative".

It would be funny if it didn't expose such a serious problem.

Is it "negative" to point out that if you don't eat, you'll eventually starve to death?  Not at all.  It's reality, and accepting reality can save lives.

Too many people seem to have an emotional attachment to their perceived problems.  They don't want a solution; they want sympathy, or company in their misery.  Their problems are familiar and comfortable.

If it makes you feel better to wallow in hopelessness and despair, I won't try to stop you.  If you want to continue chasing your tail in an endless cycle of doing the same thing and expecting a different result, who am I to try to convince you to do something more constructive, or to even sit down and relax?  But I don't want to join you, either.

If you see the futility of propping up the status quo, and would prefer to try something that can actually make life better today and into tomorrow, take a chance and reject coercion, reject theft, and embrace voluntary association and self-responsibility.

On the other hand, if you do make a positive change and refuse to get sucked into other people's negative vortex, you'll be called "Utopian".  The truth is somewhere between Utopia and Washington DC, but that isn't dramatic enough, I suppose.

.

"The Discovery of Freedom"

I've been reading Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom" and made a discovery of my own.

The entire book can be distilled down to one Malcolm Reynolds quote: "That's what governments are for- get in a man's way".

You're welcome.

.

Libertarian badassery

I believe it's already "badass" to be libertarian, but others may not quite see it that way.  So what would libertarian badassery look like?

First, there would be adherence to the Zero Aggression Principle- that part is non-negotiable- but beyond that would be a determination to not stand for any violations of non-aggression in your presence.  An effective knight in shining armor for anyone around who is being violated by an aggressor or thief.

Next would be a determination to not violate property rights of others in any way.  The ZAP is essential, but not sufficient.

However, both the above should always be tempered with the wisdom to know that while you don't have a right to initiate force nor to trespass, you must do what you think you need to do in the present situation and accept the consequences that come when you step beyond your bounds.  This means that if you see a kid about to be hit by a falling tree on someone else's property, you go ahead and boldly trespass and grab the kid and then accept the consequences of your actions, whatever they may be.  Let others second-guess and criticize.

There would also be the confidence to do what you know you have a right to do regardless of any "laws" to the contrary, but combined with the wisdom to pick your battles.  Don't martyr yourself unnecessarily or in a wasteful manner.  If you get caught up in the State's "system" due to doing right and good things they forbid- or failing to do stupid and wrong things they mandate- have a decision already made concerning how you will respond to that possibility.  Submit or fight as you see fit, not as others would tell you to do.  Either strategy can be the right course, and whichever you choose will be criticized by those not in your shoes.

Then, and I hate to say it, would be the incorporation of an inner strength to not preach at statists.  A quiet confidence that "thugs will be thugs", and yapping about it to them isn't likely to change their nature.

Yeah, that's not me, either.

.

If not "Stand your ground"- what?

The opposite of stand your ground? Crawl away like a bitty little bug.

That's what your enemies- the anti-liberty, anti-LIFE bigots want you to do.  And if you die... well, too bad.  At least you didn't use a gun.

.

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.

.