Today's newspapers are missing their point

In a discussion on Facebook, where someone complained about the local paper, I posted this:

I think newspapers have a very fine line to walk in today's market. Yes, they should be hard-hitting and generally expose and oppose the local politicians/"authorities"/sacred cows as a matter of duty... however, those local politicians/"authorities"/sacred cows control access to information and also can influence advertisers (and may have businesses which are advertisers themselves)- and they have families and friends who will stand by them no matter how corrupt they may be, and will set off a domino effect of cancelled advertisers and subscribers. So, even though a no-punches-pulled news source would be nice, I doubt it would survive today without some truly independent financing that didn't depend on keeping the local power-mongers happy. It's a conundrum.

My editor then responded:

Not so much a conundrum, Kent. We're not afraid to annoy advertisers or public officials. We do that all the time. Every newspaper is challenged by lack of resources, in multiple forms -- time, experience, money, etc. But fairness also comes into play. It's not ethical to publish rumors; we need facts. Multi-layered discussion, best addressed one specific issue at a time.

I don't want to "get into it" with him, but I disagree.  Actually, his answer was even more disturbing than my original suspicions.

It's not about fairness (which as Scott "Dilbert" Adams points out, isn't a feature of reality, anyway).  

While it might not be ethical to publish rumors (which I actually agree with, by the way), it is a newspaper reporter's job to pursue those rumors relentlessly to see if there's any validity to them.  Yes, you need facts. So find them.  Or discover that the fact show the rumor seems to be without merit.  For now.  All "public officials" should feel so much pressure that they are afraid to do anything even marginally questionable for fear of being caught.  Never let off the pursuit.  I'm not even talking about when they're sneaking off to see their mistress or "pool boy", or to smoke crack or other private matter, but those times they might be tempted to make a backroom deal, or ally with a known crook in any way, or pocket that kickback or bribe- anything in the public realm, where they are "officially" advocating, passing, or enforcing rules against you and me and violating liberty.  In fact, the scrutiny should be so intense and unending that no one wants the job at all.  If it results in less "governing", so much the better.

No one forced anyone in a "public office" [sic] to take that "job".  They made the deliberate choice to live at my expense, without my consent, and place themselves in a position where they feel empowered to order me around and violate my life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.  So, if they want to whine about being subjected to intense scrutiny, they should resign and get an honest job instead.  I have no sympathy.

And that is what a newspaper should do.  And what they don't do anymore, if they ever really did.  And that is very tragic.

That being said, I'm glad I'm not a reporter.  And all local cops, bureaucrats, puppeticians, and authoriturds should be, too.  Because I would enjoy exposing them way too much.

.

Thanks, and please consider it.

.

Fun with "COPS"- the flipside

Now that you've had a few days to have "fun with COPS", pointing out what they have become, let's shame them by playing the same "backronym" game with what they should be, instead.

I'll admit this is much harder for me, since the only thing I think cops should be is something other than cops, or unemployed.

Still, I'll start this so you can see what I mean.

"Civilized Old Protector"
"Consistent On Principles"
"Caring Over Policing"

Can you do the same awesome job with this, more difficult, idea as you did with the original?

.

Add hate for even more misery

A couple of days ago I had to take a trip to The City because my daughter had a doctor appointment.  After the doctor visit my daughter wanted to go to the mall to ride the escalator, the mini-carousel, and play at their play area.  That was fine with me- she doesn't get the chance very often.

Nemesis bitched, complained, and whined endlessly about it- at the risk of ruining Daughter's fun.  Daughter offered to let her wait in the car, which didn't go over well- as you might expect.

And in the midst of this Nemesis added that "of course" I don't mind going, because I just "like everyone"- even "those kind of people".  Whoever they might be- but whom I suspect might include young, attractive, happy, friendly females.  They are Nemesis's kryptonite.  Although, when you pretty much hate everyone it is hard to pin it down.

Funny thing is, I didn't always like people.  It was only after I fully embraced liberty and anarchy that I was able to let people be themselves without being "offended" in some way.  Yet, libertarians are claimed to be the "angry" ones?  Not from what I've experienced in my own life.  Nemesis enjoys hating too much to ever let go of that, even if it kills her.

Too bad- it sure is more fun to like people and get along.

.

Life is better without coercion

Life is better without coercion

 (My Clovis News Journal column for December 27, 2013)

I love people. If you had known me fifteen years ago, that would sound like a shocking statement coming from me. But that was before a few things changed in my life to bring out the best in me.

Within a period of a few months I discovered there is a name for how I had always pretty much believed anyway: "libertarianism"; I discovered I wasn't the only one in the world with this philosophy, and I started going out and being sociable.

Before those things happened I had thought I was a disgruntled conservative- tired of being stabbed in the back by politicians I assumed were on my side, and disgusted because of seeing so many people refusing do what I thought was right.

I also considered myself a hermit.

I wouldn't go back to either of those ways for anything.

I still don't like the choices a lot of people make, and I'll criticize those choices. Sometimes it sounds like I am criticizing the individuals who make those choices, but all they'd have to do is stop initiating force or stop violating property rights and the criticisms would no longer apply to them. It's simple, really.

Sure, some people are so invested in their life of theft and coercion that it is hard to distinguish between the act and the person, but it's still nothing more than a bad choice they are making. They are not what they do.

If I say I hate green shirts, I am not talking about the people wearing those shirts. There's no reason to get angry over something that is separate from you and could be taken off and tossed aside if you wanted to. If you wear green shirts and my lack of approval offends you, either don't let me see you wearing a green shirt, or just shrug off my comments.

But, my criticisms are not quite so trivial, are they? After all, you would probably criticize the same behavior I do if the person committing the act didn't have a government job that supposedly justified the behavior.

I know how much better life can be when you stop advocating sending armed people to coerce others on your behalf "for their own good". All I want is for you to discover the same truth for yourself. Because I love you as a person, even if I don't always like what you advocate or do.

Try it for yourself and have a Happy New Year, and a happier new you!

.

A gentle reminder

See the "Donate" and "Subscribe" buttons over there?  Hint, hint. ------->

.

Jefferson's "Rightful Liberty"

Thomas Jefferson said:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

This is just another way of stating the Zero Archation Principle.

Would "laws" against burning "The Flag" get a pass?  Would anti-drug rules, or anti-gun rules, or minimum drinking/driving/whatever age rules?  Are anti-property rights rules, such as "border control", "property codes", or "zoning laws" existing within the confines of "rightful liberty"?  Would compulsory school attendance rules, traffic "laws", or any form of "taxation" pass the test?

No.  All those reflect only the tyrant's will.  If you support or advocate any of those things (which I doubt many of my regular readers do) you have declared yourself to be an enemy of rightful liberty.  Jefferson would have hated what you stand for and would count you with the rest of the collectivists.

At least be honest about it.

.

Smug Prohibitionists

I happen to live in a "dry" county.  Yes, those relics of a barbaric past still exist in some places.  And smug nannies (or should that be "ninnies"?), who apparently hate and distrust everyone else, believe that's the way it should be.

I just read a letter to the editor in the State Line Tribune (no website) where the person was saying that keeping the county "dry" is the right thing because of the "neglect, and destruction of families" and "drunk driving" that comes with alcohol abuse.  Oh, and because of the "fact" that moderation "often fails".

Never mind that these things still happen, and are still blamed on alcohol, in this county which has been "dry" since it was established over 100 years ago.

He (they? the letter was signed as a couple) was also upset that Hollywood is destroying the morality of the country.

I can only speak for myself, but Hollywood doesn't dictate my morals- if it did I might be a murderous flag-sniffer, since there has always been a lot of that coming out of that industry.  It's sad that some people think that "good" requires them to advocate violating the rights of others, and are so incredibly weak-willed that they can't keep their own houses in order if their neighbor lives differently.

And I'm not even a drinker.  But in this era of fairly easy transportation (other than running the LEO gauntlet), if I want alcohol, I can drive 5 minutes (or less) and be in another county (another state, in fact) and buy alcohol there, so the belief that a "dry" county keeps alcohol out of the system of its residents is a delusion.  Or would be if they actually believed it.  But they know it's a lie.  It just makes them happy to be "moral" by telling others what they are allowed to do- I suspect it makes them feel superior in some way.  The truth is, they just want to dictate to others.  They are bad people, regardless of whether or not they are "nice".

Yeah, it makes me mad that people like that don't get shouted down, shamed and exposed, for what they advocate.

.

Fun with "COPS"

A friend sent me his acronym (or, more accurately, a "backronym") for the word "cop".  Finding fun and painfully truthful "backronyms" is a game I sometimes like to play, so how about we see what we can come up with.

His suggestion was "Consistently Oppressing People".

The one that immediately came to my mind was "Cowardly Overweight Perverts".

"Count On Penetration" might be a good one for the rapists of the Deming, NM police department.

So, what can you think of?

.

"The Terrorists Won..."

Bill Buppert has a good one: "The Terrorists Won (Not Those Terrorists)".

The US is a Terrorism State- although that's probably a redundant term.  All states, nations, etc. are based upon terrorism.

But he's talking specifically about the terrorists called "police officers" and the recent rash of murders and attacks by those armed thugs. He points out that: 

"This is quite simply a declaration of war on ordinary Americans by every police department in America, all 19,000 departments."

Yep.  And it's a war in which only one side is "allowed" to do the shooting and killing.  A good person on the other side is told to just sit tight and take it.  They are told that their killers are the good guys and fighting back automatically makes one "bad" and deserving of death.  I wonder how long such a narrative can last.

"Cops remain the largest threat to human liberty in history and continue to carry on that proud thuggish tradition in America."

Yep.  That's why I keep pointing to this truth.  Cops have decided that YOU are their enemy.  When will you return the favor?

.

Another book?

I have had several people ask if I plan on writing another book.  The answer is: I don't know.

My previous books haven't sold well enough to justify all the work that would go into a new book.  It's not simply about the money- although that is part of it- it's about having a limited amount of time, and I am already spending time on my other paying projects, and really don't see a way to dedicate more time on another book without cutting the time spent elsewhere, thus cutting into the money I am currently making.

However, all the other five books are still available, and I have recently updated (and improved) the Kindle versions of all my books.  You can find all the information on the books by going here: My books.  If the other books ever really take off sales-wise, I would definitely consider a new book worth the effort.

And I have an idea of what I might do for a new book.  If it becomes worth my time.  If you'd like to see it happen, buy my books and suggest them to others.

.

Cops/Terrorists

There's a fair amount of attention being paid to the claim that cops have killed more Americans since 9/11 than the terrorists killed that day.  Not surprising, but why not include cops with their brethren, the other terrorists?  It's a false distinction.

Anyway, I wish someone would make a distinction between murder-by-cop and a cop killing someone who needs to be killed.  If you or I would face punishment for acting as the cop did in any incident, it's most likely a case of murder.

I accept that some people, in the midst of some actions, need to be killed to protect the innocent- and I can even accept that in some cases the only people present and in danger might be cops, and in that case I wouldn't fault them for killing in self defense.

But further, I would like to see how many of those cases of self defense were made necessary by cops escalating a situation.  If you are enforcing some BS rule such as prohibition (guns or drugs) or trying to help someone violate the private property of an individual through "taxation" or "code enforcement", then you started it, and your actions can't be self defensive at their foundation.  You deserve to die "in the line of 'duty'".  I would be willing to bet the cops wouldn't fare well under such scrutiny, so I doubt the facts will ever be released where they could be analyzed.

I would take an encounter with an honest terrorist whom I could shoot without too much danger of being punished for defending myself over an encounter with a cop, whom I would undoubtedly be punished for defending myself from.

How about you?

.

Wishing you joy in simple things

Wishing you joy in simple things

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 20, 2013.)

It's that time of the year again, when all but the most cynical grumps among us feel a bit sentimental and more forgiving toward their fellow humans. It's a time when gifts are given and received, bringing joy to everyone involved. Unless the gift involves terra cotta and chia seeds.

I wish I were rich enough to give everyone around me something tangible which would adequately demonstrate their worth. Since that's not possible, I'll tell you what my wish for each of you would be.

My wish is for you to find joy in the simple things you'll end up spending most of your time doing anyway, and still enjoy the surprises which come along to turn your world on its head.

My wish is for all your relationships to be strictly voluntary and non-coercive. Not only at this time, but throughout the entire year.

My wish is that you realize the ability to have or to do the things you want the very most, and come to understand the only way to have that is to extend the same courtesy to everyone else.

My wish is for you to have just the exact amount of government you are happy to have controlling your life; no more, no less. I wish the same for each and every one of your neighbors. As long as you keep this gift to yourself everyone will be happy. Sort of like those Rudolph underwear you got a few Christmases ago.

My wish is for you to find the joy in discovering that you can get everything done which should be done, voluntarily. My wish is for you to accept that if you have to force people to participate, it's probably not quite as wonderful as you claim. I wish you the peace of letting go of those things you believe everyone else should want, but they don't, even under threat of jail.

My wish is for you to have the ability to make an honest profit by doing what you actually enjoy, so that you'll never "work" a day in your life, and that you'll always have people clamoring at your door to spend their money with you of their own free will. I wish for you the ability to keep everything you earn, safe from thieving hands of any kind.

My wish is for you to be able to worship in any way you like, free from fear of oppression or coercion, but that you never gain the ability to impose your religious ideas on others through law.

Merry Christmas- or the winter solstice holiday of your choice.
.

Nationalism- ewww!

Nationalism is messed up. It's still messed up even if your country really were "the best" because of how it becomes automatic and blinds you to negative changes.

Suppose you had a "country" that was founded upon rightful liberty, and which only had rules that reflected that.  Sure, those rules would still be unnecessary, but very little harm would come from them.

I could understand some sort of nationalism in your mind toward this "country".

However, if over time, your "country" changed to where rightful liberty was thrown under the train by more and more harmful rules, and you were in such a habit of "loving your country" that you didn't notice the change, then your nationalism becomes a caricature of itself.  You are now cheering a corpse.  A rotting, festering corpse which is spreading disease and killing all those who insist on kissing it on the mouth.  Or wherever.  You now stink just like the corpse.  You appear insane to anyone looking on who is even slightly removed from your beliefs.

That's how nationalism appears to me.

.

Electing the ridiculous

If elections are good enough for some things, let's just impose them for everything.

We can elect America's favorite color.  If red wins, then everyone's favorite color will be red, at least until the next election.  Anyone who previously had a different favorite color has to adjust their preferences.  Red things will be given priority everywhere.  Those who stubbornly cling to some other color will have to go to the back of the line- if allowed to participate at all.  And, their unapproved "favorite" might just come with other penalties, yet to be determined.

Then we can do the same for car models.  The one that wins will determine the size of parking spaces, the height of drive throughs, turning radii, and road conditions.  And of course, all will be made in America's favorite color only.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it.

In this case there's no such thing as "America", in this sense.  There are only individuals, each of whom has different ideas of "best".

It's just as stupid to elect "leaders".  This is why politicians can't be leaders.  Leaders can't be imposed.  A leader emerges spontaneously and organically, and can't be elected to shortcut his way to "leadership".  A "majority" of those who vote can't choose a leader for everyone else. Either enough people agree that the person is a leader, by following voluntarily and without forbidding opting out, or the person is just a pretender.  That's the difference between a leader and a Ruler- well, one of the differences, anyway.

.

Too hard on cops? #2

Without enforcers there can be no tyranny.

Cops are where the boot-heel meets the face.

There is no excuse for them.  Not anymore (if there ever was).  You can either support and advocate liberty, or you can support cops.  Well, you can also do neither, but you can't do both.
If you are a "friend of cops" you are an enemy of liberty, by your own choice, not by anyone else's opinion.

It's not possible to be "too hard on cops".  They have the option each and every day of ending their abuse by walking away from the "job" and pension, or to choose to continue being a bad guy.  You see which they choose by what they continue to wear and what they continue to do.

It's impossible to focus on this fact "too much".  Never let anyone forget it.

.

Thinking is what I do best

If there's one thing I do better than anything else, I would say that thing is thinking.  I think very well.

I'm not saying my thinking has any real world benefits outside my skull.  I might be like an artist who produces a huge number of works that never sell, but instead sit in his attic until he is dead and his relatives are left to figure out what to do with all this "stuff".

But I spend an awful lot of time and energy thinking.  Even if I am doing other things, I am thinking- often deeply detailed thoughts.  I can figure out almost anything, given the time and right information.  When I experience "flow", it is usually because some thought concept has suddenly started unraveling itself in my head- pushing aside all other thoughts until it is a fully formed Thought.

My thinking life has manifested itself in various physical ways.  As a child my thoughts usually became drawings.  Sometimes thoughts became toys when I was forced to make a toy I wanted, but which wasn't offered for sale anywhere.  It wasn't that I just made the things; the thoughts formed and I was compelled to make them take form.

As I entered that hell known as school, my thoughts became daydreams and doodles that spontaneously took form on any bit of paper while a "teacher" talked.  Even when real teachers spoke I could listen and process the information better if I kept my thinking brain busy by doodling- except in very rare cases where my mind was challenged enough that it needed all its faculties engaged to process what the teacher was saying.  Stop me from doodling and my "noisy" brain wasn't constructively distracted and I couldn't concentrate.  The "teachers" didn't believe me when I told them this fact, but it was completely accurate and true.

During high school I still doodled, but I also attempted to write fictional stories.  Which I hated when I re-read them.  My thinking was better than my writing, by far.

I have thoughts in so many different areas that I can't begin to list all the different types of creative things I have been forced to try to learn to do in order to make those thoughts real.  Once I get an idea in my head I can't move on until I do my best to give it physical reality.

In "adulthood" I have used my thinking to design things which met with varying degrees of popular success.  I have let my thoughts become paintings, flags, clothing, written works (blogs and columns and stories and even erotica), coins, useful household objects, skills I needed to learn, concepts I thought would solve problems, etc. All because I can't get my brain to shut up for even a minute.

I have a very active imagination, and can construct mental worlds with great detail (and dream in great detail, sometimes "lucid dreams") and can extrapolate very well.

That's not to say I believe I am above having flaws in my thought processes or that I'm never wrong.  I would be foolish to imagine that.   I am just saying I am very good at thinking, whatever that is worth.

.

Liberty Lines, January 16, 2014

(Published in the Farwell TX/Texico NM State Line Tribune)

The front page article about the Farwell man arrested on "drug, weapon charges" should bother anyone who cares about doing right.

I don't know the man or anything about him.  However, if you don't stand up for everyone, equally, when you see them violated, your complaints will be seen as hypocritical if you ever fall victim to the same.

Of all the charges he faces, only one has even the possibility of being an actual wrong.  I'll address that in a bit.

First let me examine the other charges: possession of marijuana.  Prohibition is always wrong and enforcing it always does more harm than the prohibited substances ever could.  To then criminalize "drug paraphernalia" is just heaping stupidity upon insanity.

"Possession of prohibited weapons" is another non-crime.  To admit you have, or enforce, a list of "prohibited weapons" is an admission that you are the one operating outside the law.  "Shall not be infringed" is not a suggestion, but a warning that any government employee who does infringe upon the right to keep and bear (that means to own and to carry, in case you didn't know) arms (which means any weapon of any sort, not just firearms) is committing a serious crime.

Then you have the twin charges of "evading arrest" and "resisting arrest".  If you have done nothing wrong, you have a right to try to prevent your arrest.  Laws used to reflect and support this basic right, but the growing police state finds this inconvenient and has recently added these fake "crimes" to it's enforcement tool kit in order to pad the charges filed.

Finally we come to the only possible wrong in that list of charges: assault.  The problem is, it isn't "assault" if you are fighting back against being kidnapped ("arrested") by those enforcing fake "laws"- in such a case you are defending yourself.  Assault is what you are defending against.

I also notice that the excuse given for trespassing on this man's liberty was a suspicion that he had stolen property, and that he wasn't charged with theft.  This makes me suspect the original excuse was known to be false from the start; a "fishing expedition" to find something to justify an arrest.

Sure, you can say enforcers have no say in the laws they enforce, but that's a cop-out.  Everyone always has the choice to do the right thing or to do the wrong thing.  Tyranny is always first made legal.  As a human being, you make the choice to either enforce tyranny, or to support liberty.  Make the right choice.

.

Murderers get a freebie

So, the enforcers who murdered Kelly Thomas were found "not guilty".  Meh.  Jury nullification (since this was an obvious, overt, and very public murder) goes both ways.

I have zero faith in the "justice system", and as I've said before, I don't think it's the proper place for justice anyway.

Nope.  The justice should come now.

I'm not saying these murderers should be given the same treatment that left Kelly Thomas comatose, and then dead, but I wouldn't lift a finger to stop anyone who did.  Karma, and all that.

What I am saying is that if these murderers were in my local area I would shun them, totally and completely.  They would be invisible to me as former humans.  I wouldn't employ them, nor do business with anyone who did.  I wouldn't sell to them for any price, and would complain to (and publicize) any business which did.  I would do everything I could to ensure these murderers died- cold, hungry, and utterly alone.  Sooner rather than later.  And I would never stop pointing out that they ARE murderers, and had they not been enforcers, they would be sitting in a cage by now.

This quote from the article linked above tells you the new rules of the game:

Ramos' attorney, John Barnett, told reporters: "These peace officers were doing their jobs...they did what they were trained to do."

So "peace" means beating you or me to death, and murder is what enforcers are trained to do to you and me. It's their "job".  Use that information as you will.

.

Liberty is not Utopia, but reality

Liberty is not Utopia, but reality

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

Is libertarianism, and its notion of "everything voluntary", Utopian?

Libertarians would point out the belief that government can be restrained and kept to a safe minimum is highly idealistic, and goes against the evidence of history.

Believers in the possibility of good government blame everyone and everything other than the institution itself for its consistent failures. Or they simply deny the failures.

They'll claim if Americans would just restore the Constitution- by which they mean get government to agree to strictly obey its charter again- everything would be fine.

It's not a matter of restoring the Constitution. Constitutions can't stop bad people with political power from eventually doing whatever they want to do. Expecting the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as a barrier to government power is a refusal to see where the justices' loyalties lie. Governments will never restrain themselves, and voters will always seek to vote themselves handouts, favors, and privileges, regardless of what a constitution allows.

Additionally, the government faithful will insist if we would only elect "the right people" the country would stop going in the wrong direction.

The fact is the "right people" are never even allowed to get nominated, much less elected, and even when half-way decent people are elected they immediately become corrupted by the system they were elected to change.

No person can represent a huge group of individuals with opposing opinions and conflicting morals. It is impossible. Instead he will represent only himself and tell you why you are wrong to disagree with him. Then, if he's in the majority in his particular government, he'll impose his will on you, under threat of violence.

Woe to you if your conscience tells you what he demands is wrong.

Even under the "best" government, the inevitable is merely delayed. History shows that republics always turn into democracies, and democracies always become tyrannies. The only variable is how quickly it happens. The idea that there's an optimal amount of government is like imagining there's a perfect amount of cancer. Above none, I mean.

The biggest complaint most non-libertarians have with our philosophy is that it allows no double standards to enable their favorite use of coercion. What is it you wish to do to others, using government, that you know would be wrong to do as an individual?

Libertarianism accepts flawed human nature. It accepts that power corrupts. That's not Utopian, it's reality.

.

Any chair in a bar fight?

Confession time:

For my CNJ column this week I am using two things I don't "believe in" to try to speak to those who believe in both.  Those things would be the Bible and the US Constitution.

Last week a friend pointed out to me that in my CNJ column I had written "Aggressive violence and theft are the proper purview of laws" and commented "it sounds to me like you are backing off a notch from a pure anarchist/voluntaryist position."

Which I'm not.  I explained that to me, the only real law is Natural Law, and all others are counterfeit "law", and to denote them I put quotation marks around the word "law".  Which the newspaper sometimes edits away.  Natural Law addresses aggressive violence and theft- all written "laws" are unnecessary or harmful.  Or both.

Which brings me back to the upcoming column.  I do try to tailor my newspaper columns to the local audience, which is overwhelmingly "Christian" (at least in self identification) and "conservative".  So, I try to remember that and use it, without watering down my core message.  I may not always succeed.

Still, I feel an explanation is in order when I give too much weight to things I don't believe in an attempt to get a message across to those who do.  Yeah, it sometimes leaves a foul taste in my mouth.  I hope it doesn't come across as dishonest.  I hope the truth still shines through.

.