It cracks me up when statists complain about the ideas of liberty being spread on the internet, because, in their minds, the State "gave us the internet", so we should be grateful and never put a disparaging word about "government" online.
Except that they're wrong about this, too.
Government didn't create the internet. Some government goons told some techies what they wanted in a robust communications tool, and those people created the internet. Much to the consternation of every government thug since the day they realized what had sprung into being was something they didn't control.
And, the internet wasn't even useful until it escaped into the wild. If government employees were still keeping it only for themselves, it would be nothing more than a filing cabinet full of dead roaches.
.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Saturday, November 23, 2013
The blind leading the blind?
Politics is not a case of "the blind leading the blind" (as I have heard claimed). It's much worse than that. It's an example of the blind "leading" the one with absolutely perfect vision.
You can see your own path- you don't need to be dragged where you don't want to go, right off a cliff, by someone who is clueless and stupid.
.
You can see your own path- you don't need to be dragged where you don't want to go, right off a cliff, by someone who is clueless and stupid.
.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Liberty Lines, Nov. 21, 2013
Published in the Farwell TX/ Texico NM State Line Tribune
(This was in response to a column by the newspaper's owner- click on the picture to read it- which suggested that the presence of a Libertarian candidate ensured the victory of the Democrat in the VA governor's race. I was asked to weigh in on the matter from a libertarian perspective.)
The Libertarian Party is a political party supposedly based upon the principles of libertarianism- but they often fall short due to their desire to win elections- or to at least play the game. They soft peddle and avoid topics they think would hurt them, and because of that can't even get the support of many libertarians. I used to be a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, but dropped out because of the LP's refusal to stick to the principles.
When they lose an election, both Republicans and Democrats think Libertarians took votes from them. Both are probably correct to a degree, depending on the particular election, but I think in most cases the people who end up voting for the Libertarian candidate simply wouldn't have voted at all if there hadn't been a Libertarian on the ballot. There is a simple solution- become more libertarian rather than constantly whining that libertarians should vote for candidates they find repugnant.
Most Libertarians, and practically all libertarians, see no reason to prefer the Republican candidate over the Democrat, or vice versa. Most see them both as simply different branches of the same political party, rather than seeing the superficial differences they emphasize having any actual value at all. If you are being chased by a hungry tiger, why would you care what color the stripes on his tail are? Both Democrats and Republicans believe it's their "right" to control what you do with your own life and property, and will use deadly force to enforce compliance. The only difference is in which parts of your life and property they choose to interfere with. That's no choice.
One big part of libertarian (and principled Libertarian) thinking is that a vote for the lesser of two evils just keeps resulting in more evil. If the choice is between two people who shouldn't be holding office, then to vote for either one is endorsing someone you don't want under the belief that "you have to vote for someone". No, you don't. It's better to not participate than to throw your support behind someone you know is dangerous to individual liberty. If you vote you are implicitly agreeing to go along with the result even if "your side" loses. In other words, if you vote you have no right to complain about the results. Yes, I know the voters usually turn that upside down, but think about it: If you play chess by the rules, how can you complain if you lose? Especially if you keep agreeing to play chess with a known cheat, or with someone who keeps changing the rules mid-game to favor himself. In that case the only winning move is to refuse to be drawn in. Go play something else instead.
(This was in response to a column by the newspaper's owner- click on the picture to read it- which suggested that the presence of a Libertarian candidate ensured the victory of the Democrat in the VA governor's race. I was asked to weigh in on the matter from a libertarian perspective.)
First of all, I am what you would call a "small 'l' libertarian" as opposed to a "Big 'L' Libertarian". It's the difference between being a philosophical libertarian and being a political libertarian (a member of the Libertarian Party). They can be the same, but often aren't.
The Libertarian Party is a political party supposedly based upon the principles of libertarianism- but they often fall short due to their desire to win elections- or to at least play the game. They soft peddle and avoid topics they think would hurt them, and because of that can't even get the support of many libertarians. I used to be a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, but dropped out because of the LP's refusal to stick to the principles.
When they lose an election, both Republicans and Democrats think Libertarians took votes from them. Both are probably correct to a degree, depending on the particular election, but I think in most cases the people who end up voting for the Libertarian candidate simply wouldn't have voted at all if there hadn't been a Libertarian on the ballot. There is a simple solution- become more libertarian rather than constantly whining that libertarians should vote for candidates they find repugnant.
Most Libertarians, and practically all libertarians, see no reason to prefer the Republican candidate over the Democrat, or vice versa. Most see them both as simply different branches of the same political party, rather than seeing the superficial differences they emphasize having any actual value at all. If you are being chased by a hungry tiger, why would you care what color the stripes on his tail are? Both Democrats and Republicans believe it's their "right" to control what you do with your own life and property, and will use deadly force to enforce compliance. The only difference is in which parts of your life and property they choose to interfere with. That's no choice.
One big part of libertarian (and principled Libertarian) thinking is that a vote for the lesser of two evils just keeps resulting in more evil. If the choice is between two people who shouldn't be holding office, then to vote for either one is endorsing someone you don't want under the belief that "you have to vote for someone". No, you don't. It's better to not participate than to throw your support behind someone you know is dangerous to individual liberty. If you vote you are implicitly agreeing to go along with the result even if "your side" loses. In other words, if you vote you have no right to complain about the results. Yes, I know the voters usually turn that upside down, but think about it: If you play chess by the rules, how can you complain if you lose? Especially if you keep agreeing to play chess with a known cheat, or with someone who keeps changing the rules mid-game to favor himself. In that case the only winning move is to refuse to be drawn in. Go play something else instead.
.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Filthy Little Liars- and Their Slimy Lawyer
You may have seen this story. Some school girls spread the rumor their teacher was a molesting pervert. He sued and won.
My response is; Yep, and the fault for that doesn't lie with the jury or the teacher, but with the filthy little liars.
But to me, that's far from the most important part of the story. The most horrifying thing I got from this story was that the girls' families and at least one slimy lawyer didn't care whether or not the teacher was guilty, they wanted him to lose the case anyway so that real molesters wouldn't get away with it in the future.
The lawyer, Lee J. Danforth, was actually quoted as saying:
"If this trial prevents one little girl or one mother or father from reporting suspected abuse, then this is profoundly sad for our society."
My response is; Yep, and the fault for that doesn't lie with the jury or the teacher, but with the filthy little liars.
How can he be so devoid of ethics that he thinks it's OK for an innocent person to be harmed?
Once again, this is why I don't think I could convict anyone if I were a juror. Not anymore. I don't want The State's goons to win even when they are after a bad guy. It empowers them and gives them the illusion of legitimacy.
.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Shutdown shows little is “essential”
Shutdown shows little is “essential”
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 18, 2013)
What have you learned from the "government shut down"?
I've learned that I wouldn't have noticed it at all if I didn't see people commenting about it. Personally, I probably wouldn't notice or care if the federal government really shut down for good and took the state and local governments with it into the dustbin of history. I expect that if I did notice, it would be like noticing a cool, refreshing breeze bringing a spring shower, or the way you can suddenly realize a nagging headache has gone away.
This is because I know what government purports to provide, and I know the market can provide those things better, when they are needed at all. I am also prepared to do without those things that are unlikely to ever be replaced. I welcome liberty.
However, I realize I am not typical.
I also learned that those who control the federal government are very vindictive, and organized the "shut down" to precisely target those who actually still support them.
I learned that "essential" doesn't mean what politicians think it means. Isn't it funny that it seems to be only the non-essential government functions which hurt "the people" when taken away? If the IRS (apparently considered essential, judging by the fact they weren't included in the "shut down") went away no one but those employees and their families would even notice, much less be hurt.
Park rangers are "non-essential" according to those who orchestrated the "shut down", at least in their normal capacity. It seems odd to me that armed guards to keep people out of parks, and terrorize those evil vacationers who dare visit or take photos of their own National Park property without an official welcome, are apparently essential- even though that job didn't exist until the government "shut down". Isn't making up numerous new jobs the opposite of "shutting down"?
It seems the only people out of a job because of the "shut down" are those who will be missed by the most people. It's almost as if the administration intentionally decided to use Americans as pawns, and cause them the most possible pain, to coerce them into putting pressure on congress to negotiate with a terrorist... I mean, to give the president everything he wants.
To prevent this ever happening again I would suggest the best course of action is for everyone to choose a private sector job, but even that doesn't guarantee job security, as demonstrated by the recent closure of Portales' Sunland Peanuts. And government had nothing to do with that. Oh, wait...
What have you learned from the "government shut down"?
I've learned that I wouldn't have noticed it at all if I didn't see people commenting about it. Personally, I probably wouldn't notice or care if the federal government really shut down for good and took the state and local governments with it into the dustbin of history. I expect that if I did notice, it would be like noticing a cool, refreshing breeze bringing a spring shower, or the way you can suddenly realize a nagging headache has gone away.
This is because I know what government purports to provide, and I know the market can provide those things better, when they are needed at all. I am also prepared to do without those things that are unlikely to ever be replaced. I welcome liberty.
However, I realize I am not typical.
I also learned that those who control the federal government are very vindictive, and organized the "shut down" to precisely target those who actually still support them.
I learned that "essential" doesn't mean what politicians think it means. Isn't it funny that it seems to be only the non-essential government functions which hurt "the people" when taken away? If the IRS (apparently considered essential, judging by the fact they weren't included in the "shut down") went away no one but those employees and their families would even notice, much less be hurt.
Park rangers are "non-essential" according to those who orchestrated the "shut down", at least in their normal capacity. It seems odd to me that armed guards to keep people out of parks, and terrorize those evil vacationers who dare visit or take photos of their own National Park property without an official welcome, are apparently essential- even though that job didn't exist until the government "shut down". Isn't making up numerous new jobs the opposite of "shutting down"?
It seems the only people out of a job because of the "shut down" are those who will be missed by the most people. It's almost as if the administration intentionally decided to use Americans as pawns, and cause them the most possible pain, to coerce them into putting pressure on congress to negotiate with a terrorist... I mean, to give the president everything he wants.
To prevent this ever happening again I would suggest the best course of action is for everyone to choose a private sector job, but even that doesn't guarantee job security, as demonstrated by the recent closure of Portales' Sunland Peanuts. And government had nothing to do with that. Oh, wait...
.
Bill Buppert's latest
Read this: The President as Police Commissioner: Cops and Collectivism by Bill Buppert
Best quote... "There is no such thing as a good cop..."
Absolutely right. As I recently saw someone say, there are no good cops- nice cops, but no good ones.
I sure do wish more people would see that fact.
.
What's worse than flying monkeys?
Cops. Not only are they cowards and a lot of other pathetic things, but they are also "compliance monkeys".
If you don't comply with their often unreasonable (to the point of absurdity) demands- faster than is humanly possible- they will act with potentially lethal force. This is not the behavior of reasonable people, but of sociopaths.
Most traffic "laws" have nothing to do with safety- but with compliance. And with stealing money for The State, of course. But that's just one example in a galaxy of "laws" and other bureaucratic nonsense.
.
If you don't comply with their often unreasonable (to the point of absurdity) demands- faster than is humanly possible- they will act with potentially lethal force. This is not the behavior of reasonable people, but of sociopaths.
Most traffic "laws" have nothing to do with safety- but with compliance. And with stealing money for The State, of course. But that's just one example in a galaxy of "laws" and other bureaucratic nonsense.
.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Teasing the dragon at the door (Updated)
I am writing a newspaper column that may not get past the publisher this week. I can't really afford to have one rejected, but this is something that really needs to be said. And I've got to at least try to get it beyond "the choir" who visits here.
It concerns the rapist cops of Deming, New Mexico.
I have edited out all the references to disembowelment* and such, but it is probably still too strongly worded to be published. I keep trying, but how gently can one say what needs to be said?
And considering how badly the last column stirred up the citizens, they may not be willing to have another controversial column from the likes of me for a few weeks.
Either way, you'll be able to read it (I just may whine for donations to cover my lost pay if it's rejected). I guess you'll find out Friday.
Update: It passed, but some things are getting edited out, and an awful lot of "allegedly" is being added, to protect the newspaper's hiney from the same kind of violation the cops are accused of committing. You can read it this friday. In a month (December 24, 2013 to be exact) you can read my original version right on this blog. Stay tuned.
*In lieu of restitution...
.
It concerns the rapist cops of Deming, New Mexico.
I have edited out all the references to disembowelment* and such, but it is probably still too strongly worded to be published. I keep trying, but how gently can one say what needs to be said?
And considering how badly the last column stirred up the citizens, they may not be willing to have another controversial column from the likes of me for a few weeks.
Either way, you'll be able to read it (I just may whine for donations to cover my lost pay if it's rejected). I guess you'll find out Friday.
Update: It passed, but some things are getting edited out, and an awful lot of "allegedly" is being added, to protect the newspaper's hiney from the same kind of violation the cops are accused of committing. You can read it this friday. In a month (December 24, 2013 to be exact) you can read my original version right on this blog. Stay tuned.
*In lieu of restitution...
.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Celebrity watching
Pretty often I see "serious minded" folk making fun of those who obsess over the latest celebrity trainwreck... while following what various puppeticians do as if it is important business.
How silly.
Paying attention to politics has as much real world value as obsessing over what Miley is smoking or who she's twerking.
Both are just cases of substandard people in far off places, with no real place of importance in your personal life, living in your head.
Your attention just feeds their ego and gives them reason to believe they really are as important as they imagine themselves to be. Sure you can say the politicians impose laws and taxes and have the power to destroy your life, but your compliance is really up to you. They have as much power over your life as you give them. Their local enforcers are the real problem, and yet, they still depend upon an illusion of legitimacy from their victims. Stop giving it.
In fact, of the two obsessions, I'd say it is less vacuous and trivial to pay attention to celebrities. At least they probably got your attention by doing something besides telling someone else to hold a gun to your head and steal your property and your liberty.
.
How silly.
Paying attention to politics has as much real world value as obsessing over what Miley is smoking or who she's twerking.
Both are just cases of substandard people in far off places, with no real place of importance in your personal life, living in your head.
Your attention just feeds their ego and gives them reason to believe they really are as important as they imagine themselves to be. Sure you can say the politicians impose laws and taxes and have the power to destroy your life, but your compliance is really up to you. They have as much power over your life as you give them. Their local enforcers are the real problem, and yet, they still depend upon an illusion of legitimacy from their victims. Stop giving it.
In fact, of the two obsessions, I'd say it is less vacuous and trivial to pay attention to celebrities. At least they probably got your attention by doing something besides telling someone else to hold a gun to your head and steal your property and your liberty.
.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
"Need" to be governed?
I don't need to be governed by anyone else, but even if I did, since everyone has the right to
defend themselves and their property from all violators, that is enough to govern me.
And the same goes for everyone else in the world.
People, exercising their rights, are the only government anyone needs, and the only kind of government that can actually work without becoming a bigger problem than that which it claims to be solving.
Obviously, some people have a pathological "need" to govern others, but even in that case they are not under the delusion that they need to be governed, themselves. Just that everyone else does.
I think we can discount the "needs" of those people as a sickness.
.
And the same goes for everyone else in the world.
People, exercising their rights, are the only government anyone needs, and the only kind of government that can actually work without becoming a bigger problem than that which it claims to be solving.
Obviously, some people have a pathological "need" to govern others, but even in that case they are not under the delusion that they need to be governed, themselves. Just that everyone else does.
I think we can discount the "needs" of those people as a sickness.
.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Shoe Goo!
Not a "primitive skill", but still a useful thing to know. This is a kinda, sorta product endorsement. No, I'm not getting paid for it and the company doesn't even know I am writing this... but I love Shoe Goo.
Originally I bought the stuff to do some shoe repairs, just as the stuff is intended for. Then, I realized it would stick to plastic toys better than anything else I had around, so my daughter's toys started getting repaired better, rather than just thrown away. She was going through tiaras too fast.
Then I started branching out to fix more and more stuff around the house. Stuff I had never been able to effectively repair before. Even fixed the side mirror on my dad's pickup with it.
The most useful thing I have found is that I can extend the life of my pants by 2 or 3 times. Maybe more. Actually, I haven't yet had to give up on a pair of pants that I have repaired with Shoe Goo.
I always wear out the left knee of my pants before anything else. Then the right knee goes, and then the seat of the pants gets holes (bike riding seems to be hard on the seat). I am not one to feel comfortable wearing holey pants, and never have been. But what I discovered is that I can rub some Shoe Goo on the inside where the wear is just about to break through and prevent it from happening for a few more months. If I get really ambitious I will cut a patch from an old pair of pants and glue it to the inside where the wear is and it lasts even better. I just keep an eye on where the next hole is going to form and nip it in the bud.
If you like saving money- and who doesn't?- try it. One tube of Shoe Goo pays for itself many times over at my house. The company might not approve of all my uses, but I just keep finding more. As soon as something needs to be fixed at my house, I don't grab the duct tape, I grab the Shoe Goo.
.
Originally I bought the stuff to do some shoe repairs, just as the stuff is intended for. Then, I realized it would stick to plastic toys better than anything else I had around, so my daughter's toys started getting repaired better, rather than just thrown away. She was going through tiaras too fast.
Then I started branching out to fix more and more stuff around the house. Stuff I had never been able to effectively repair before. Even fixed the side mirror on my dad's pickup with it.
The most useful thing I have found is that I can extend the life of my pants by 2 or 3 times. Maybe more. Actually, I haven't yet had to give up on a pair of pants that I have repaired with Shoe Goo.
I always wear out the left knee of my pants before anything else. Then the right knee goes, and then the seat of the pants gets holes (bike riding seems to be hard on the seat). I am not one to feel comfortable wearing holey pants, and never have been. But what I discovered is that I can rub some Shoe Goo on the inside where the wear is just about to break through and prevent it from happening for a few more months. If I get really ambitious I will cut a patch from an old pair of pants and glue it to the inside where the wear is and it lasts even better. I just keep an eye on where the next hole is going to form and nip it in the bud.
If you like saving money- and who doesn't?- try it. One tube of Shoe Goo pays for itself many times over at my house. The company might not approve of all my uses, but I just keep finding more. As soon as something needs to be fixed at my house, I don't grab the duct tape, I grab the Shoe Goo.
.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Officer paranoia
"Officer safety" has nothing to do with safety- it's all about officer paranoia.
If it really was about safety, then cops should be very relaxed and calm in any interaction with "the public". After all, they are heavily armed, and swagger around with the knowledge that their entire gang in blue will be at their back in any scuffle between them and normal folk. They know they have manipulated the "law" so that anything they do to you is "within departmental policy" and anything you do to resist their molesting hands is "assaulting an officer" and can be met with lethal force, "legally".
But cops aren't relaxed. They are frantic, paranoid, and trigger happy. They understand instinctively (even if they don't allow themselves to admit it) that their own actions have made them less safe than they would have been in the past. People in general are not worse- cops are. And there are real-world consequences that go along with that.
As I saw someone else say (sorry, I forget who said it) "There are no 'good cops'; there are 'nice cops'". But by choosing (yes, they do make a choice) to show up on the job each day to enforce counterfeit "laws", they are choosing to be the bad guys- the predators. Some can still afford to be "nice" while being the bad guys (just like the friendly neighborhood mafioso), but that number dwindles each day. They make themselves less safe and their frantic paranoia is evidence of this fact.
Don't trust them, and never forget that no situation is so terrible that it can't be made worse by inviting a cop into the middle of it. You think it's dangerous to handle things on your own? Just wait til you call a cop and he shows up and immediately shoots down one of your family members who happened to twitch at the wrong time.
But you do what you want- just remember I warned you.
.
If it really was about safety, then cops should be very relaxed and calm in any interaction with "the public". After all, they are heavily armed, and swagger around with the knowledge that their entire gang in blue will be at their back in any scuffle between them and normal folk. They know they have manipulated the "law" so that anything they do to you is "within departmental policy" and anything you do to resist their molesting hands is "assaulting an officer" and can be met with lethal force, "legally".
But cops aren't relaxed. They are frantic, paranoid, and trigger happy. They understand instinctively (even if they don't allow themselves to admit it) that their own actions have made them less safe than they would have been in the past. People in general are not worse- cops are. And there are real-world consequences that go along with that.
As I saw someone else say (sorry, I forget who said it) "There are no 'good cops'; there are 'nice cops'". But by choosing (yes, they do make a choice) to show up on the job each day to enforce counterfeit "laws", they are choosing to be the bad guys- the predators. Some can still afford to be "nice" while being the bad guys (just like the friendly neighborhood mafioso), but that number dwindles each day. They make themselves less safe and their frantic paranoia is evidence of this fact.
Don't trust them, and never forget that no situation is so terrible that it can't be made worse by inviting a cop into the middle of it. You think it's dangerous to handle things on your own? Just wait til you call a cop and he shows up and immediately shoots down one of your family members who happened to twitch at the wrong time.
But you do what you want- just remember I warned you.
.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Laws poor substitute for morality
Laws poor substitute for morality
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 11, 2013. Another "Huh?" headline from CNJ)
If you've been around computers much you know they tend to get slower over time as more junk builds up inside their programming, and as more processes get fouled. Some of this is due to spyware, malware, and viruses created to do you harm, and some is simply little glitches that tend to reproduce and spread.
Any complex system does the same sort of thing as time goes by.
Sure, you can keep applying patches, but the only solution is to wipe everything clean and start from scratch with a blank slate- or as blank as possible.
Such is the state of the body of laws in America. It's time to start over with a blank slate.
Even if you wipe the legislative slate clean, it will still be wrong to use force against anyone who isn't attacking someone else or stealing or damaging private property.
Laws against things that are truly wrong don't need to be imposed or enforced. Decent people will always recognize that murder is wrong, for example. It doesn't take a law to make it wrong, nor does it take a law to make it right to prevent a murder from happening or to permit you to seek justice for a murder.
That part is built into reality- it doesn't change, whether you write laws in that regard or not. Everything else needs to be carefully evaluated before being installed again.
Once the laws have been wiped away, and before imposing one to deal with some problem, look at history to see if previous legal attempts to address that issue fixed the problem, failed to fix it, or actually made it worse.
"Laws", against anything other than aggression or property rights violations, are harmful to the fabric of society. That's because to enforce them you must first violate life, liberty, or property.
The vast majority of laws are written as a patch- an attempt to fix a problem created by earlier laws. This just makes more problems that will need to be fixed later. This isn't a solution. Stop patching the flawed and broken code; that only makes things more twisted and problematic. Scrap it instead.
Install the recovery disc and start clean, and before enacting any law- even one that has a long history of being "common sense"- evaluate that law and see if it worked as advertised, or if its effects were misguided. Leave all your emotional baggage behind for this task.
And remember: If you need a law to make you do the right thing, you're already wrong.
.
If you've been around computers much you know they tend to get slower over time as more junk builds up inside their programming, and as more processes get fouled. Some of this is due to spyware, malware, and viruses created to do you harm, and some is simply little glitches that tend to reproduce and spread.
Any complex system does the same sort of thing as time goes by.
Sure, you can keep applying patches, but the only solution is to wipe everything clean and start from scratch with a blank slate- or as blank as possible.
Such is the state of the body of laws in America. It's time to start over with a blank slate.
Even if you wipe the legislative slate clean, it will still be wrong to use force against anyone who isn't attacking someone else or stealing or damaging private property.
Laws against things that are truly wrong don't need to be imposed or enforced. Decent people will always recognize that murder is wrong, for example. It doesn't take a law to make it wrong, nor does it take a law to make it right to prevent a murder from happening or to permit you to seek justice for a murder.
That part is built into reality- it doesn't change, whether you write laws in that regard or not. Everything else needs to be carefully evaluated before being installed again.
Once the laws have been wiped away, and before imposing one to deal with some problem, look at history to see if previous legal attempts to address that issue fixed the problem, failed to fix it, or actually made it worse.
"Laws", against anything other than aggression or property rights violations, are harmful to the fabric of society. That's because to enforce them you must first violate life, liberty, or property.
The vast majority of laws are written as a patch- an attempt to fix a problem created by earlier laws. This just makes more problems that will need to be fixed later. This isn't a solution. Stop patching the flawed and broken code; that only makes things more twisted and problematic. Scrap it instead.
Install the recovery disc and start clean, and before enacting any law- even one that has a long history of being "common sense"- evaluate that law and see if it worked as advertised, or if its effects were misguided. Leave all your emotional baggage behind for this task.
And remember: If you need a law to make you do the right thing, you're already wrong.
.
Car question
For the past two years- or getting close to that- I have been depending on other people for motorized transportation. I had a blowout in a blizzard and messed up my alignment (and obviously lost a tire) and can't afford to get that fixed. And now there are other problems my poor car has due to sitting unused for a couple of years.
But I am sick of depending on others when I need to get where I need to go- I use my bike in town, but this town lacks a lot of what I need to get to, and I also have other things I need a car for, even though I try to combine trips and eliminate them if possible. The "main town" is about 13 miles away, and not realistically a bikeable situation.
So, hypothetically, if I were ever somehow able to get enough money to fix the car (I'm estimating around $2,000), would it make sense to fix the car, or should I just buy another used car even if it cost me more? I'm tall enough, and my legs are so ridiculously long, that I can't fit in, or safely drive, a compact car of any kind. I have owned a standard transmission car but I despise standard transmissions with a red hot passion, but if I had no choice...
I'm not a "car guy", so your "Ford vs Chevy vs foreign car" stuff is meaningless to me. As is just about everything else of a technical nature. So I need it in "Captain Dummy talk".
It's not likely that I'll be doing anything soon due to finances, but I guess I should be thinking which way to go. And I suppose I should go ahead and sell my car if I'm never going to fix it. Any advice?
.
But I am sick of depending on others when I need to get where I need to go- I use my bike in town, but this town lacks a lot of what I need to get to, and I also have other things I need a car for, even though I try to combine trips and eliminate them if possible. The "main town" is about 13 miles away, and not realistically a bikeable situation.
So, hypothetically, if I were ever somehow able to get enough money to fix the car (I'm estimating around $2,000), would it make sense to fix the car, or should I just buy another used car even if it cost me more? I'm tall enough, and my legs are so ridiculously long, that I can't fit in, or safely drive, a compact car of any kind. I have owned a standard transmission car but I despise standard transmissions with a red hot passion, but if I had no choice...
I'm not a "car guy", so your "Ford vs Chevy vs foreign car" stuff is meaningless to me. As is just about everything else of a technical nature. So I need it in "Captain Dummy talk".
It's not likely that I'll be doing anything soon due to finances, but I guess I should be thinking which way to go. And I suppose I should go ahead and sell my car if I'm never going to fix it. Any advice?
.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Government terrorist ID training
My in-depth research skills have paid off. Here, for the first time anywhere, is the newest training material the US government uses, and orders the states to use, to identify terrorists:
Honor the Stormtroopers- Serving The Empire
I'm sure they believe they are fighting for the right side- the "good guys". After all, they are fighting "rebel terrorists" who destroyed a military base. They are probably held in high regard among their peers and praised by those who use them as tools. Their sacrifice and selflessness is apparent.
I suppose we should "honor" them... right? Without regard to the actual effects of what they did and are doing.
You go right ahead. I'll sit this one out.
.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
The Undiscovered Planet
What if you lived on a newly discovered planet somewhere and, unbeknownst to you, someone decided to make agreements among themselves claiming all the land, and then started selling the land back and forth under your feet. In that case, would you really be a trespasser?
Because, at some point in the past, that's exactly what happened.
I am not one of those claiming "we" should "give the land back to the original owners", because those people are long dead, and there is no way to know who would have owned that land now had the original theft never taken place.
It's just something I was thinking about. I guess it just means you had better stake a claim, and be willing to defend it with violence, in the event of new land becoming available.
.
Because, at some point in the past, that's exactly what happened.
I am not one of those claiming "we" should "give the land back to the original owners", because those people are long dead, and there is no way to know who would have owned that land now had the original theft never taken place.
It's just something I was thinking about. I guess it just means you had better stake a claim, and be willing to defend it with violence, in the event of new land becoming available.
.
Saturday, November 09, 2013
Knocking CEOs
My CNJ column explained why raising the minimum wage won't solve anything. But, what then is the solution?
What, if anything, to do about grossly overpaid CEOs and underpaid employees?
Convince stockholders to cut the CEO's pay would be one tactic. But if they think the CEO is worth what they are paying him you'll have a hard time convincing them to kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs. In that case they believe he is responsible for increasing the profit of the corporation, and their own dividends- whether or not that's true. But, even if it's not true it really isn't your concern how much the CEO makes. Don't like how much he is paid? Don't do business with (or work for) that corporation*.
Plus, it's probably a fantasy to believe that cutting a CEO's pay will increase the pay of the employees. One vastly overpaid guy's paycheck isn't going to make much difference when divided among all the underpaid employees**. I doubt they'd even notice the additional money in their checks, and if it were enough to notice it would probably just kick them into a higher tax rate and result in less take-home pay anyway. This is why you should remember he isn't the real enemy- those who work for The State and set up and profit from the corrupt system are a more valid target.
I agree that it is emotionally aggravating to know you work for a few dollars an hour while someone else, working for the same company, sits in an office, in a cushy leather chair that rolls, and makes more money in one month than you'll earn in your whole life.
I guess the best solution isn't to try to knock him down; it's to find a way to join him. Without becoming a thieving, aggressive parasite. I never said it would be easy- if it were, I would have done it.
*Corporations are a government-created fiction. They are a part of government, and probably wouldn't exist in a free market, unless a way can be found to have the liability-avoiding benefits, without the theft and coercion. I don't see that happening, but maybe you do.
**In 2012 the CEO of Walmart made $20.7 million. Walmart has about 2 million employees (as far as I can tell, this is only counting the employees in the American stores). So, if you divided the CEO's entire pay among the employees they'd each get $10.35 more per year- that's not quite 20 cents per week; a half a cent per hour for full time employees. Woohoo.
Now, look at a paystub and see how much the various "governments" steal from every paycheck, and then tell me who the real parasite is.
.
What, if anything, to do about grossly overpaid CEOs and underpaid employees?
Convince stockholders to cut the CEO's pay would be one tactic. But if they think the CEO is worth what they are paying him you'll have a hard time convincing them to kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs. In that case they believe he is responsible for increasing the profit of the corporation, and their own dividends- whether or not that's true. But, even if it's not true it really isn't your concern how much the CEO makes. Don't like how much he is paid? Don't do business with (or work for) that corporation*.
Plus, it's probably a fantasy to believe that cutting a CEO's pay will increase the pay of the employees. One vastly overpaid guy's paycheck isn't going to make much difference when divided among all the underpaid employees**. I doubt they'd even notice the additional money in their checks, and if it were enough to notice it would probably just kick them into a higher tax rate and result in less take-home pay anyway. This is why you should remember he isn't the real enemy- those who work for The State and set up and profit from the corrupt system are a more valid target.
I agree that it is emotionally aggravating to know you work for a few dollars an hour while someone else, working for the same company, sits in an office, in a cushy leather chair that rolls, and makes more money in one month than you'll earn in your whole life.
I guess the best solution isn't to try to knock him down; it's to find a way to join him. Without becoming a thieving, aggressive parasite. I never said it would be easy- if it were, I would have done it.
_
*Corporations are a government-created fiction. They are a part of government, and probably wouldn't exist in a free market, unless a way can be found to have the liability-avoiding benefits, without the theft and coercion. I don't see that happening, but maybe you do.
**In 2012 the CEO of Walmart made $20.7 million. Walmart has about 2 million employees (as far as I can tell, this is only counting the employees in the American stores). So, if you divided the CEO's entire pay among the employees they'd each get $10.35 more per year- that's not quite 20 cents per week; a half a cent per hour for full time employees. Woohoo.
Now, look at a paystub and see how much the various "governments" steal from every paycheck, and then tell me who the real parasite is.
.
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Just a vector
Should I be disturbed that the most blog visits I have gotten in ages- even more than my post about the death of Chris Kyle, or the recent one pointing out that cops are cowards, or even my consistent "top post" of the past 3 months about Edward Snowden- was just a link to someone else's work?
Whether I should be bothered or not, I am. Just a little.
I suppose any page views are good. Of course I like it better when people are appreciating something I produced, but the more people who are exposed to the truth- from whatever source- the better the world becomes. Eventually.
So, in that spirit, I am glad that my post passing along someone else's awesome work has gotten as much attention as it has.
.
Whether I should be bothered or not, I am. Just a little.
I suppose any page views are good. Of course I like it better when people are appreciating something I produced, but the more people who are exposed to the truth- from whatever source- the better the world becomes. Eventually.
So, in that spirit, I am glad that my post passing along someone else's awesome work has gotten as much attention as it has.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)