The good intentions of statists

I have no doubt that the average statist has good intentions, means well, and only wants the best.

But they go about it all wrong by ignoring reality.

The reason I have this opinion is because almost everyone I know is a statist. They aren't intentionally evil. They simply haven't thought through the things they support and advocate enough to see where they lead.

In most cases, they probably want the same things I want: the health, safety, and prosperity of themselves and their loved ones. They just haven't acknowledged that the way they go about trying to ensure these things is evil- they cause harm to the health, safety, and prosperity of others who aren't important to them.

The problem is everyone is someone else's "other". Statism becomes a big cannibal feast where no one is going to come out whole.

The nicer, and more rational, choice is to recognize that everyone has an absolute right to do anything that doesn't violate the life, liberty, property, or "pursuit of happiness" of anyone else. It's the only way that doesn't create a victim. It's the better alternative to being a statist.

-

Added

.

America founded on liberty

America founded on liberty

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 7, 2014)

How much do you love your freedom, and what are you willing to do for liberty?

Freedom, to me, is simply doing whatever you want to do. It can be good or bad, depending on your character, but is often neutral.

Liberty, though, is the freedom to do absolutely anything which doesn't violate another person's equal and identical liberty. Liberty - Thomas Jefferson called it "rightful liberty"- is what America was founded in order to protect and promote. Nothing more or less. No rules or laws can legitimately violate that.

Do you love liberty enough to let people make their own mistakes and deal with the consequences?

I do.

I love liberty so much that I am willing to not interfere in other people's lives with the expectation they will do the same for me. Even if I don't like a behavior, as long as no one is being forced to participate, and no third party is being harmed, I will swallow my annoyance, however great it may be, and mind my own business.

On the other hand, I love liberty enough to speak up when people are doing things which have popular support, but which do harm a third party. I am willing to stick my neck out and take the slings and arrows of those who are desperate to justify the wrongs they wish to commit with a numbed conscience, in person or by proxy. I speak up even when the violations don't directly affect me at all. It may not be the path to popularity, but it's the right thing to do.

There is no other way to protect liberty. You can't limit freedom or violate liberty, or support those who do, while giving those noble concepts lip-service, without being a hypocrite. Yet, I see it every day. Almost no one will point out the Emperor has no clothes, no emperor deserves to be worshiped or obeyed, and he isn't even an emperor to begin with. I'm not speaking only of any current Imperial Personage, but any who believe they hold such power and authority.

How much to you value freedom and liberty? Enough to put your love into action even when it makes you uncomfortable? Enough to sacrifice your personal wishes for what's right? It shouldn't even be seen as a "sacrifice" to stay out of other people's business, but for too many, it is not only a sacrifice; it's such a costly one they can't bring themselves to do it. Liberty is what ends up sacrificed on the altar of those anti-liberty, non-consensual collective actions that have wide popular support.

.

How many posts?

This is my 3000th post to this blog. How did I get so wordy? I was always so quiet; kinda kept to myself...

I appreciate all the readers who have stuck around since the beginning (I'm assuming there are one or two, and I suspect I know who they might be) and I'm very grateful for all those who have joined me along the path.

I also look forward to picking up new travel companions as I keep wandering down the trail ahead.

In that vein, if you know anyone who might enjoy my particular obscure corner of the internet (or if you know someone who'd hate it, and you'd like to piss them off), invite them to give it a try. I'd really like to see if my blog could break through the wall it seems to have settled against- in numbers of readers. The word "stagnate" comes to mind, but that seems much more negative than I really feel about it.

I'd like for my blog to be more popular, but I'm not willing to compromise for that popularity. Quality over quantity and all that- and I do feel my readers are the highest quality I could hope for.

I'd probably keep writing if there were only two or three people visiting my blog every day- just because it helps me organize my thoughts better.

If you know a place where a link might attract more readers, please go ahead and share it. If not, that's OK too.

Thanks!

.

"Whatever floats your boat..."

I saw the following exchange, which I have paraphrased:

A: "If you live by the Zero Aggression Principle how can you deal with those who aggress and will never change?" 

B: "Do whatever floats your boat, so long as it doesn't sink mine" 

A: "What if your 'floating' jeopardizes my boat?"

Now, if those are actually aggressing, as is hinted at in the first question, then you are completely within your rights to defend yourself with whatever level of force you think is necessary. I won't second-guess you. I don't think the answer was a very good one.

As for the second question, which is unrelated to the first, but was asked in response to the strange answer he got, that's where some differences of opinion come into play. The range of answers to that question is kind of the common justification for "drunk driving laws", isn't it. And most anti-gun "laws", too, for that matter.

"Jeopardize"?

I still think that the possibility of doing harm isn't the same as actually doing harm. Yes, some things increase your risks. There are risks all around you, whether you are aware of them or not (and you should try to be aware of them). Unless someone is initiating force against you, or violating your property in some way, I can't sympathize too much that you feel their actions "jeopardize" you.

I would rather have my risks increased than be guilty of "proactively" putting restraints on (violating) the liberty of those around me. Being aware of my surroundings and doing all I can to keep myself- and those around me- out of harm's way is my responsibility. No one else's, and certainly not the "law's".

Still, I also believe that if you feel you "must" violate the ZAP for some reason, do what you feel you have to- and accept the consequences that go along with it.

.

Drug tests for control-freaks

I'm tired of seeing posts and emails calling for drug tests for welfare recipients.

I have a better idea: drug tests for cops, bureaucrats, and politicians. Every day when they show up for their "job".

Then, if the politicians fail the test- in other words if there is not a lethal level of some drug or another in their system- send them home until they rectify the situation. I think liberty could be saved with drug tests in this way.

.

Statist on Exhibition

I realize this blog post is from a long time ago, but someone recently posted it on Facebook and I made the mistake of reading it.

(I wonder if its author is the same doofus who made a similar comment to me a few days back.)

Anyway, after reading the painfully ignorant post I was thinking to myself "Can statists really be this stupid?"... and the answer, obviously, is yes. Yes they can.

Just one example of the absurdity from the post "...[The Philosophy of Liberty video] illustrates libertarianism with abstract stick figures representing people devoid of race, gender, and historical context."

Well, yeah, because "we libertarians", as opposed to the author, aren't racist, or sexist, nor do we seek to blame and punish people for things they didn't do- such as things done by their long-dead ancestors centuries before the people you would punish for the acts (or their grandparents) were even born.

In other words, I am not an insane bully.

The author spends a lot of time hand-wringing over the rights violations of the past. Yes, slavery of the forcibly imported Africans (or anyone), and the genocide of the aboriginal North American people (or anyone) were wrong. Guess what- no one living today participated in either of those things.

Statist author is upset that "For most American libertarians, if the government taxes rich white Americans, it is theft, but if rich white Americans stole African American labor, time, energy, and talent, it happened a long time ago and accounts should be cleared."

"Taxation" of anyone ever, in any amount, is theft and is wrong. Period.

Stealing labor (which is exactly what "taxation" does, too) from anyone, by any individual, under any pretext, by any name is always wrong. But if you can't make it right since all the thieves and their victims are dead and have been for many years, you really should "clear" the "accounts".

What would the statist suggest instead? Punish people for things they didn't do?

If the author's grandfather murdered someone before he ever had children, and got away with it, should we put Statist Blogger on death row today for the grandfather's violation? I'll assume here that the grandfather's survival and subsequent reproduction "enriched" the author's life in some way- either through existence, property which wouldn't have otherwise been inherited, or just from a family not broken by the imprisonment or execution of a father/grandfather.

And, even in the case of "taxation" being extorted from people (both rich and poor, by the way) in the past - it's the past. There is no possibility of really repairing past damage this long after it occurred. Get over it- and don't do it again.

The past is gone. You and I will never know the whole story (or even more than a few highlights which may or may not even be accurate)- and "minor" details can make a huge difference.

Yes, there is a time when the slate has to be wiped clean and a "from this point forward, never again" path needs to be followed.

My brain hurts from exposure to this level of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I wonder if the author still believes what was written in that post.

.

Legal tender

A while back I ordered a couple of Aurum 1/10 gram gold "bills". Very pretty! And I like the idea.

One thing that jumped out at me as I examined one is the statement printed thereon: "Not legal tender".

The first thing I thought was "Obviously! This has actual value!"

Then I got to thinking "Is this a warning or a promise?"

What is legal tender and why would I prefer it?

Well, the definition linked above says that back in the 1730s "legal tender" meant "currency that may be lawfully tendered in payment of a debt". Notice the word "may". Sounds nice and voluntary. I have no problem with that.

Unfortunately, the current definitions all include coercion: "Legally valid currency that may be offered in payment of a debt and that a creditor must accept" and "currency in specified denominations that a creditor must by law accept in redemption of a debt". Note the addition of the rude word "must".

I don't know about you, but my thinking has always been that if you feel the need to use coercion to get people to go along, your idea probably isn't a very good one.

Sure, I'll accept "legal tender" as long as it's around, but I'm always happy to accept money that avoids the "legal tender" trap. It's the polite alternative.

.

Pardon me...

Next week I have to make a trip to The Big City for my daughter's doctor appointment. It's not anything too major, but they will be taking blood*, and it would be kinda nice if I had a few extra dollars to spend while there- she's not going to enjoy the appointment ( an understatement)
So, if anyone feels like tossing a small donation my way, it would be appreciated. As I say, this isn't a critical need or anything, so please don't feel bad if you ignore this message.

Thanks.

(* Trying to solve the mystery of her seemingly constant infections of one sort or another- the tentative diagnosis is an IgA deficiency.)
.

Liberty Lines- March 6, 2014

The headline in the State Line Tribune says "Texas primary election on tap". Wow! I never thought of it that way before, but I can't argue with the accuracy.

That particular tap is better left alone. Like beer, elections can be addictive and are apparently very intoxicating. When it comes to voting, those deepest into the keg look down upon those who stay sober, sometimes to the point of virulent hatred.

Maybe a careful vote here and there won't really hurt anyone, but each vote makes it easier to do the next time. You forget to only vote against new State power, which can possibly be excused, and end up voting for this or that new "law" or puppetician. For many people, moderation is impossible.

You make excuses about why you drink... I mean, vote so much, saying you need to. It makes you feel better or gives you a sense of importance.

You quickly develop a taste for it, and before you know it you are lying in the gutter with Democrapublicans, incoherently mumbling about "next time".

The current situation, which is what people often say they are voting against, is a result of people voting for those people and "laws" which they believe will control their neighbors, and their enemies, the way they'd prefer. How has that worked out? With everyone subject to innumerable violations of their Rightful Liberty, in every area imaginable, each and every day. The only "winners" are those who do the controlling or profit from the inevitable enforcement and bureaucratic leviathan.

As is often pointed out, it is insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

Why not try something different? Mind your own life and stop trying to find people and "laws" to control others on your behalf. You'll be amazed at how empowering and liberating that can be.
.

Not all opinions are equally valid

I have said it before, and I will say it again: not all opinions are equally valid.

Yeah, I know... this isn't a "nice" thing to say in this era of "everyone is entitled to their own opinion...". Yes, they are. That doesn't automatically make their opinions valid in any way, though. You (and I) are completely within your (or "our") rights to be dead wrong. It also doesn't mean I am required to pretend all opinions are on equal footing.

It may hurt someone's feelings when their opinion that "taxation isn't theft", or that "there need to be reasonable restrictions on guns" is laughed at due to the fact it isn't a valid opinion, but the truth is still the truth, and the truth has no room for feelings.

If it is "necessary", in your opinion, to violate the fundamental human rights of others- for "the children", the "common good", or whatever- your opinion isn't valid. It doesn't matter how many justifications you can come up with. It doesn't matter how passionately you defend it. It doesn't matter how important it is to you, how much you believe it, or who agrees with you. It doesn't matter if you have the numbers on your side to impose your opinions on others in the form of "law"- that just makes you dangerously wrong.

I realize that dismissing your opinions on this basis isn't likely to make you like me, or get you to change your mind. That is why, in casual conversation, I'm not going to burst into laughter when you express one of those empty opinions you hold dear. But, eventually, it comes down to this: opinions which, if put into action, would violate the life, liberty, or property of others are not valid, and if they are put into action or made "law", they may have to be defended against. Violently.

Weigh your opinions and examine them in the harsh light of liberty. And toss them in the trash heap if they don't measure up. You'll be better off.

.

Knee-jerk reaction not a solution

Knee-jerk reaction not a solution

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 31, 2014)

How frequently people do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

It is right to care about people who hurt themselves or others through substance abuse. It is wrong to impose prohibition in an attempt to save people from themselves or others.

It is right to care about innocent victims of random violence. It is wrong to impose anti-gun rules which can only affect those who aren't the problem.

Not only is the knee jerk reaction- passing another law or more draconian enforcement of the rules already "on the books"- wrong, it almost always has an effect opposite the one advertised.

Prohibition is the federal government's "narcotics price support program", as well as the biggest excuse for violating every principle America was founded upon; as is the sad continuation of the 1920s-era prohibition: the anti-"drunk driving" rules and police state-style "checkpoints". You can have America, or you can have prohibition. You can't have both.

The same goes for anti-gun rules. Some leftists complain that the reality that criminals aren't affected because they don't obey laws anyway- by definition- shouldn't invalidate anti-gun proposals, but "should" or not, it does.

Anti-gun laws only harm those who have no intention of breaking laws, and would therefore not go on a murder spree to begin with. Advocating, passing, and enforcing those anti-liberty laws only empowers the bad guys.

This is the danger of doing the wrong thing with good intentions. Assuming the intentions are truly good, which is only speculation based upon giving the benefit of the doubt.

You can also do the right thing for the wrong reasons. The recent push for "state's rights" is one example. States have no rights; only individuals do. However, anything which diminishes the federal government's power will most likely boost individual liberty in the long run.

The re-legalization of marijuana which is slowly gaining momentum around the world is another example. It's wrong to fine or arrest people for possessing or using a plant, so anything that results in fewer drug war victims is a good thing, even if the new tax revenues are a stain on the good.

The liberalization of concealed carry, and open carry, rules is another cause for some optimism. The Bill of Rights is the law of the land, so anyone supporting any "law" concerning guns, including the issuing of permits for something which "shall not be infringed", is a criminal. But, even this diluted liberty results in more dangerous conditions for the aggressors among us, and that is a net benefit.
.

Backward priorities

Would you want to see your son die saving the life of a dog? Not unless you love the dog more than you love your son. 

What if the dog were an imaginary dog? 

If you would be happy to see your kid join the military- which always includes the possibility of death or dismemberment- then you love the government (not "America", or "our nation") more than you love your kid. And what's worse is government really only exists in your mind. It's an imaginary dog.

The only thing your kid could die for, while in military "service", is the US government. That's the nebulous entity whose interests he or she is protecting and promoting. Not mine, yours, or any other individual's. Well, maybe the president's or most congressvermin's, so no worthy individual. 

Even if your kid dies saving the lives of fellow military members, the politicians benefit- you have saved "government property" as far as they are concerned, and promoted the idea that being in the military is somehow "heroic".

Do you really want your son or daughter to sacrifice life or limb- or mental health- for any politician?

If so, and you encourage them to join the military, or at least not try to dissuade them from joining, then you would sacrifice your child's life for a dog, or the illusion of a dog. Why do you love the State more than your kid?

.

Obstacles

Which is more caring: to give a needy person stolen goods, or to remove the obstacles which are keeping them in need?

Even if they are happy that you gave them the stolen goods, or even if you give them a gift of something you got honestly, it's a temporary fix. The same old obstacles will still be there, preventing them from taking care of themselves.

I realize most people manage to do OK even with the obstacles- and the State parasites prosper specifically because of the obstacles they impose against everyone else- but for people on the margins those obstacles can be just enough to keep them from making it on their own. And the margins are growing.

Charity is great, and sometimes the need is so immediate there is no other way to get the help to where it is needed fast enough, but if you have the ability to remove some obstacle, or at least stop propping it up with your acquiescence- or show a person a way around it which doesn't result in them sitting in a cage- doing so is the best kind of charity there is. That will keep on paying off over time, and will benefit everyone.

I happen to think a great way of removing those obstacles is to stop propping up the state with borrowed legitimacy. Stop acting as though its "laws" are necessary, and those who "break" them are bad. Stop asking permission to do what you have a right to do. Stop complying- at least when there isn't a gun pointed at your head. Stop speaking of the State, its employees, and its "laws" as though they have any claim on your life, liberty, property, or time. Point and laugh at the anti-liberty bigots and control freaks every time you notice them- and stop noticing out of habit. Don't bother flipping off cops sitting in wait to rob unsuspecting travelers- that keeps them in your mind. Take note to avoid, and forget. Oh, and flash your headlights at the oncoming cars.

Yeah, I know some of these things may be somewhat contradictory. That's because there is no "only way" to stop helping the State hurt others.

The end of the State's false authority would mean people can take care of themselves without worrying about artificial obstacles- the real, natural obstacles are often bad enough. What would you be doing today if there were no State preventing you by threat of death; only the consequences of violating Natural Law and Rightful Liberty? I think I'd be taking people on survival walks, letting them learn simple techniques for making life better with primitive methods in a relaxed setting without pressure (I had a friend who made a lot of money doing this until The State shut him down to sell his "license" to someone "better connected"). Or, maybe I'd be selling guns out of my living room.

I think just about everyone would be doing better under liberty. (Other than those who can't survive honestly and have always relied on the State- either for welfare or "jobs".)

And then, when there is still a need, do what you can to help.

.

Yay, Bitcoin!!

Love it, hate it, or simply USE it, Bitcoin just gained a bit of favor in my eyes, regardless of its current trade value.

When a disgusting congressvermin calls Bitcoin (or anything else) "dangerous", I know it has value. If only to frighten the control freaks and other anti-liberty bigots.

Yep. I like Bitcoin even MORE now.

.

Self Ownership

Yes, in spite of any claims to the contrary I own myself and my life.

Ownership of anything includes the right to damage or destroy that which you own. I could harm myself (although I'm not "Emo" and not generally inclined to do so), and I could destroy myself through suicide if the pain of living became more than I could bear. I can also rent out my self- my mind or my body- for a time, if that is what I wish to do. Maybe I could even sell myself, but if I did that, whatever I got in return for myself would then in actuality belong once again to my new "owner", where it came from originally, which means I didn't really get anything for the sale, so I'm not really sold after all, which all seems untenable.

Recently in a thread somewhere I mentioned that "sovereign citizen" is a contradictory condition, since we are all sovereign- self owning- and a citizen is claimed by some State. You may quibble over that assertion, but that's not the main point.

Someone came back with: "You cannot OWN yourself as you are not property. You cannot be divided without ceasing to exist."

Hmmm. "Then how can you donate a kidney?"

He replied that: "A kidney is not a division of YOU. It is simply a part of you. Divide your acre. You get two half acres. Both are land. In your example you have YOU and a Kidney after the donation."

That seems a complicated distortion/contortion to me. A division is, by definition, a "part".

If I divide a car in half, neither half remains a "car". If I divide a raw egg in half, neither half is an "egg". If I take my cell phone apart, none of the constituent parts now qualify as a cell phone. But all of those were property before the division, and continue to be property- albeit, somewhat less useful property- after the division.

If I chop myself in half, neither half is a person anymore.

If I take a seat out of my car, I now have a car and a seat. If I take the back off my cell phone, I now have a cell phone and a back panel. Just like if I donate a kidney, there now exists myself and a kidney.

I am perfectly comfortable being "property" which belongs to the consciousness I identify as "me", which resides inside the brain/body, making the whole, which understands that no one else can own me. Call that what you will- self ownership or something else.

Added: I just found this video by Josie the (Awesome!) Outlaw: Who Owns You?

.

Doing the "heavy lifting"

Sometimes, after finding myself to be the only one who posts a comment from the liberty-respecting side, and being piled on by statists, I'll get a little grumpy.  I'll think to myself "Of course statism gets a pass. Liberty lovers don't stand up and offer the alternative when the opportunity is presented."

So statism seems normal and natural; an unquestioned assumption, for most people. Government schools are just one example.

But, then if I draw attention to the problem others will chime in. Of course they do, because liberty lovers are smart and awesome!

I shouldn't even be feeling that silly initial irritation, because I do realize that everyone sees different things that "need" commenting on- I know I miss 99.99999999% (a guess- it might be much higher) of the statist stuff out there to be seen. Stuff on which others probably wish they had some help defending liberty. No one has time for it all- or we'd all be slaves to defending liberty in internet comments. And any kind of slavery is still slavery.

Simply living free, without initiating force or theft is the most powerful pro-liberty commentary there is. That's The Important Thing. Internet comments are nothing compared to that.

So, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of you for doing the hard work of defending liberty however you do it, wherever you are, in ways obvious and subtle, whether anyone else ever notices or not. You are improving the quality of my life with your efforts.

.

Don't be a bully!

A friend sent me this helpful information from a government website:

Signs a Child is Bullying Others

Kids may be bullying others if they:

• Get into physical or verbal fights
• Have friends who bully others
• Are increasingly aggressive
• Get sent to the principal’s office or to detention frequently
• Have unexplained extra money or new belongings
• Blame others for their problems
• Don’t accept responsibility for their actions
• Are competitive and worry about their reputation or popularity

Watch out for kids who act like that! The government says those kids are probably bullies and .... hey, wait a minute!

Let me take a second look... is that "Signs a Child is Bullying Others" or "...You Might be a Cop"?

Of course, if you are a cop, when sent to the principal's office, he pats you on the head and tells you you did nothing wrong, and the person you bullied (or electrocuted, shot, raped, put into a coma, or murdered) had it coming. You may still be sent to "detention" for appearances, but while in "detention" you'll still get paid, and as soon as everyone is looking the other way, you'll be back in the gang as if nothing ever happened; free to bully with even more confidence next time.

What could go wrong?

.

Right thing not contingent on legality

Right thing not contingent on legality

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 24, 2014)

I may have hinted in the past that I'm not a big fan of voting. I understand the reasoning behind it, and why some liberty advocates still vote- especially in local elections. They argue that they are morally responsible for doing all they can to avoid a fight- even when they believe the fight to be inevitable. When forced to defend themselves or others from the popularly elected police state, they want to know they did everything in their power to seek an alternate outcome.

In my mind this is equivalent to begging a bully to stop hitting you rather than stopping him using self defense. And that's under the best of circumstances. Under the worst, voting is the moral equivalent of ganging up on the unpopular kid to take his lunch money, or force him to be your slave and do your homework. Very few, if any, aspects of life should ever be put to a vote.

Even in cases where voters are allowed to vote themselves a little more liberty, voting avoids responsibility. You shouldn't wait for the laws to change to allow you to do what you already have a right to do, nor to permit you to stop your violators. You should do the right thing now, regardless of permission.

I recently saw someone comparing a national politician's stance on continuing the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs to the Allies in WWII waiting to liberate the death camps until the laws that established them could be overturned. Exactly!

If a person is arrested and imprisoned for something other than aggression or a private property rights violation he is a political prisoner. This doesn't make him bad; it shines the ugly light of truth on those who advocate caging him. Every day he isn't freed, with no conditions put on his release, is another day added to the guilt of those who want him caged.

For the most part, voting led to this situation. If not through an actual vote on the rules that permit political prisoners to languish in a cage, then by electing tyrannical men and women who seek popularity through violating those on some imagined fringe of society.

Liberty isn't generally popular enough to win elections, only fear and hatred seem to have that power. But it is never necessary for the right thing to be made legal before you step up and do it. Waiting for the results of an election to go the right way before you'll do the right thing, especially if you have the power, is cowardly.

.

Thank you to all who have helped out this month.  The first of the year has several additional expenses and all help is very welcome.  Thanks again!

.

Oh, NOW I get it...

Opinion: "A subjective idea about something, or an objective fact you dislike and therefore disagree with".

Fact: "Objective reality, or a wild assertion you like".

.

Herding cats

No, I'm not really talking about getting libertarians to do what I believe they should be doing, I'm talking about literally herding actual felines.

I may not be able to do that, but I sure can lead them around. I can't walk around the house without a herd of cats (OK, there are only 3 of them) following in my wake. And when it's "treat time", there is a stampede.

I wonder what other lessons might be hiding there.

.