Government meddling not helping
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 25, 2013.)
When judging whether you should do more of something, or even continue to do it at all, a necessary step is to look at the results your actions have produced so far.
After over a century of government schooling, usually erroneously called "public education", illiteracy is at crisis levels in America. Another century of letting government control education and today's texting generation may be literacy's "good old days" by comparison.
After a century or so of ever-escalating anti-gun "laws", the least dangerous places are still those areas which have avoided the most restrictive, or what the anti-gun activists would call "common sense", regulations. The most restrictive locations keep getting less safe.
Because of strife between the "races", government imposed "laws" which violated the right of association, particularly that policy which was called "Affirmative Action", and caused the strife between the races to begin heating up again. For decades now, about the only racial problems that have existed are those directly created by government intervention.
President Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty", and imposed policies that made poverty practically hereditary and almost impossible for those being "helped" to ever escape. Poverty is winning that war.
After several decades of drug prohibition, approximately the same percentage of people are addicted to the forbidden substances as were addicted before the prohibition began, and the laws are driving the drugs to grow ever more dangerous and cheaper.
Here in the midst of the post-9/11 security mania, Americans are less free at home and less safe when venturing out into the rest of the world. And there have never been more people around the world willing to kill or die to strike a blow at the US government, which they mistake for Americans.
After handing control of the money supply over to the Federal Reserve a hundred years ago the US dollar has lost 95% or more of it's value. "Inflation" isn't normal; it is the consequence of the Federal Reserve's accelerating counterfeiting operation which floods the economy with more and more dollars every year- each of which makes the dollar in your hand worth just a little bit less.
How is all that "help" working for you?
Of course, when proposing to interfere, you also need to examine whether your plans will violate the rightful liberty of any person, or violate their property rights in any way, no matter how seemingly minor. If it will you shouldn't ever do it.
It leaves me wondering, how can anyone imagine that socializing medical care will have an effect opposite to that of state intervention in every other area?
.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Who is less trustworthy?
In a conversation with my newspaper editor last week, concerning my column, he mentioned that he also doesn't trust cops, but that doesn't mean he trusts the people who sue the cops- particularly when they wait a year or more to file the suit.
Well, I don't necessarily automatically trust anyone, but I know cops lie as a matter of course. It's a required part of holding the "job".
Sure, a guy who sues the cops and wants to be paid millions of "tax" dollars also has an incentive to lie.
No one gets my trust automatically. And who is it more important for me, personally, to be wary of? Who can do me the most damage, with the least chance of me being able to fight back effectively? It's not the guy suing the cops, even if the cops are- in this case- "innocent".
.
Well, I don't necessarily automatically trust anyone, but I know cops lie as a matter of course. It's a required part of holding the "job".
Sure, a guy who sues the cops and wants to be paid millions of "tax" dollars also has an incentive to lie.
No one gets my trust automatically. And who is it more important for me, personally, to be wary of? Who can do me the most damage, with the least chance of me being able to fight back effectively? It's not the guy suing the cops, even if the cops are- in this case- "innocent".
.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Knock out the aggressors
That new excuse for aggression, the "knockout game", does seem to show a need for more people being armed at all times, but I wonder how much a gun would really help.
If the attack comes with "no warning", as is claimed, how will you have time to pull your gun?
By all means carry a gun with you everywhere you go, but that's not enough. You also need to be aware of your surroundings every moment of every day. Make it a habit.
If the predators can't get within striking range, they can't punch you. But if they do manage to catch you off guard, and if they fail to knock you unconscious with the first punch, maybe you can end their consciousness forever before they succeed.
.
If the attack comes with "no warning", as is claimed, how will you have time to pull your gun?
By all means carry a gun with you everywhere you go, but that's not enough. You also need to be aware of your surroundings every moment of every day. Make it a habit.
If the predators can't get within striking range, they can't punch you. But if they do manage to catch you off guard, and if they fail to knock you unconscious with the first punch, maybe you can end their consciousness forever before they succeed.
.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Be careful what you ask for
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)