Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Governments are harmless
No government has ever harmed any individual. Did I really say that? Yes, I did.
Do you doubt me? Well...
Let's say you believe in a god- let's call it "Unext"- your god can't harm me. It isn't real and can't really "do" anything. Right?
But you can harm me because of your belief in Unext, if you thought Unext wanted you to do so.
Just like a cop or Brownshirt of some other variety could kill me for "the government". It's not the imaginary thing which is dangerous, it is the believers (and those who don't necessarily believe, but are just using it as an excuse to pillage).
So, while government, by itself, is utterly harmless because it isn't really there, the belief in government has been the most deadly mental virus ever to infect the mind of any species on Earth.
.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Life is too short not to have fun
Life is too short not to have fun
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 14, 2014)
Libertarians usually enjoy a good joke at our own expense. The most amusing jokes are based on truth.
In today's police state, this humorous response to an all-too-common occurrence lets us laugh at a serious, and growing, problem.
Then there are jokes which probably won't be understood as well by people unfamiliar with libertarians and their ideas:
Of course, libertarians know "the market" is us. If we want the light bulb screwed in, we will either do it ourselves or pay someone else to do it. That is how it happens "on its own" rather than with someone throwing authority around and ordering it to be done.
Some humor is found in the common perception of libertarians, whether it's completely accurate or not:
Personally, I like being with people as long as they aren't pushing me around, but the joke still made me smile.
Turnabout is fair play. The absurdity of both the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and false authority create the humor in this popular tale:
If only everyone recognized such authority for what it really is as well as that fictional bull.
Yes, I laugh at jokes directed at libertarians as well as those directed at our opposition. When you're on the right side, you have nothing to fear from jokes. Life is too short to not have fun.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 14, 2014)
Libertarians usually enjoy a good joke at our own expense. The most amusing jokes are based on truth.
Q: Why did the libertarian chicken cross the road?
A: "None of your business. Am I being detained?"
In today's police state, this humorous response to an all-too-common occurrence lets us laugh at a serious, and growing, problem.
Then there are jokes which probably won't be understood as well by people unfamiliar with libertarians and their ideas:
Q: How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: "None. If the market wants that light bulb screwed in, it will happen on its own."
Of course, libertarians know "the market" is us. If we want the light bulb screwed in, we will either do it ourselves or pay someone else to do it. That is how it happens "on its own" rather than with someone throwing authority around and ordering it to be done.
Some humor is found in the common perception of libertarians, whether it's completely accurate or not:
Q: What is a libertarian salad?
A: "Lettuce alone!"
Personally, I like being with people as long as they aren't pushing me around, but the joke still made me smile.
Turnabout is fair play. The absurdity of both the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and false authority create the humor in this popular tale:
A DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas, and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, “I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs.” The rancher says, pointing, “Okay, but don’t go in that field over there.”
The DEA officer explodes: "Mister, do you see this badge? I have the authority of the Federal Government with me. This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish--on anybody's land. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear?”
The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.
A short time later, the rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life, chased by the rancher’s big Santa Gertrudis bull.
With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he’ll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs: ”Your badge! Show him your BADGE!”
If only everyone recognized such authority for what it really is as well as that fictional bull.
Yes, I laugh at jokes directed at libertarians as well as those directed at our opposition. When you're on the right side, you have nothing to fear from jokes. Life is too short to not have fun.
.
Signs of freedom
I hang my head in shame and admit I have never shot a road sign. Never even felt tempted to.
Now, probably most people who do shoot road signs aren't doing it as an expression of liberty. They just see something that attracts their attention and shoot it. "Shiny objects", and all that.
Others, just perhaps, are expressing themselves when they perforate those ugly sheets of metal. For them, road signs are an affront; a stand-in for the people who enforce the "instructions" on the sign. It is freedom of expression- "free speech", supposedly protected from State interference by the First Amendment. In that case, shoot away! If it makes you happy (and you are aware of your backstop).
Road signs aren't private property. Their utter destruction, in most cases, wouldn't harm anyone. In fact, they should all (well, all but those which give directions to get from here to there) just be removed forever- and those which give needed information, replaced with signs placed there by the individual who owns the road, using his own money, after the socialist road system dies a well-deserved death. And shooting those individually owned signs would be wrong.
I recognize that destroying a road sign will cost "tax" money when it is (stupidly) replaced. I realize that if a sign gets shot up badly its message- whatever that may be- will not be communicated to travelers. And in the case of ignorant things such as "speed limits"- your ignorance of the "law" is no excuse, and some enforcer who is ignorant of the laws which should eliminate his "job" will still violate you for doing whatever the sign said not to do. But highwaymen have always been a danger for travelers. The solution remains the same.
So, to me, a road sign riddled with bullet holes is a symbol of freedom. If there ever comes a day when the signs have no bullet holes, it will be a clear sign that freedom and liberty have been lost.
.
Now, probably most people who do shoot road signs aren't doing it as an expression of liberty. They just see something that attracts their attention and shoot it. "Shiny objects", and all that.
Others, just perhaps, are expressing themselves when they perforate those ugly sheets of metal. For them, road signs are an affront; a stand-in for the people who enforce the "instructions" on the sign. It is freedom of expression- "free speech", supposedly protected from State interference by the First Amendment. In that case, shoot away! If it makes you happy (and you are aware of your backstop).
Road signs aren't private property. Their utter destruction, in most cases, wouldn't harm anyone. In fact, they should all (well, all but those which give directions to get from here to there) just be removed forever- and those which give needed information, replaced with signs placed there by the individual who owns the road, using his own money, after the socialist road system dies a well-deserved death. And shooting those individually owned signs would be wrong.
I recognize that destroying a road sign will cost "tax" money when it is (stupidly) replaced. I realize that if a sign gets shot up badly its message- whatever that may be- will not be communicated to travelers. And in the case of ignorant things such as "speed limits"- your ignorance of the "law" is no excuse, and some enforcer who is ignorant of the laws which should eliminate his "job" will still violate you for doing whatever the sign said not to do. But highwaymen have always been a danger for travelers. The solution remains the same.
So, to me, a road sign riddled with bullet holes is a symbol of freedom. If there ever comes a day when the signs have no bullet holes, it will be a clear sign that freedom and liberty have been lost.
.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Licensing another liberty
A while back I helped someone get a New Mexico "license" to sell alcohol at retail stores. The test was online. Yeah, the thought of sitting through hours of statist indoctrination disgusted me, but since I'm the "brains"... (Yes, they passed.)
The test material even quoted MADD, as if that group has the slightest bit of credibility!
Anyway, I noticed something rather interesting about the test.
The whole purpose of the test was to shift responsibility away from the purchaser of the alcohol, and attempt to place it on the seller. If the seller "gets it wrong", they are the one threatened with punishment. How's that for a continuation of the sort of "thinking" indoctrinated into kids in government schools? Do something stupid, blame someone else.
I did learn several tricks to buying alcohol, and traps to avoid (things the test taught the sellers to be on the alert for), so I guess it wasn't a total waste and might come in handy one day. Perhaps I should offer to sell my knowledge.
.
The test material even quoted MADD, as if that group has the slightest bit of credibility!
Anyway, I noticed something rather interesting about the test.
The whole purpose of the test was to shift responsibility away from the purchaser of the alcohol, and attempt to place it on the seller. If the seller "gets it wrong", they are the one threatened with punishment. How's that for a continuation of the sort of "thinking" indoctrinated into kids in government schools? Do something stupid, blame someone else.
I did learn several tricks to buying alcohol, and traps to avoid (things the test taught the sellers to be on the alert for), so I guess it wasn't a total waste and might come in handy one day. Perhaps I should offer to sell my knowledge.
.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
"Press 1 for English"
If you are worried about "Press 1 for English" you have been successfully distracted. Congratulations!
Instead of worrying about what language the guy standing in line at the grocery store speaks, or whether some answering system accommodates people who speak other languages, I'd rather make puppeticians speak plain English instead of lawyerly weaselspeak.
And then, maybe people would see that ignoring those monsters- or at least withdrawing their compliance- is in their best interest.
"Even" when it means you might be exposed to more people speaking languages you don't understand.
The language spoken doesn't matter (not even if it's lawyerly weaselese); only the initiation of force- or the credible threat to initiate force- and theft matter.
Worrying about anything else is just a sign you have been tricked into worrying about things that are not real issues. Why would someone do that to you? How does it benefit them? Do you like being manipulated for their benefit?
Press 1 to refuse to cooperate anymore.
.
Instead of worrying about what language the guy standing in line at the grocery store speaks, or whether some answering system accommodates people who speak other languages, I'd rather make puppeticians speak plain English instead of lawyerly weaselspeak.
And then, maybe people would see that ignoring those monsters- or at least withdrawing their compliance- is in their best interest.
"Even" when it means you might be exposed to more people speaking languages you don't understand.
The language spoken doesn't matter (not even if it's lawyerly weaselese); only the initiation of force- or the credible threat to initiate force- and theft matter.
Worrying about anything else is just a sign you have been tricked into worrying about things that are not real issues. Why would someone do that to you? How does it benefit them? Do you like being manipulated for their benefit?
Press 1 to refuse to cooperate anymore.
.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Just keep wiggling that key
I think the Constitution was a big mistake. You don't enhance liberty by setting up another government, no matter how "good" you believe your new government to be.
And, every person alive has the exact same right to own and to carry weapons regardless of whether the Second Amendment exists, and regardless of where that person may be.
However, I can see what the Second Amendment was supposed to do without saying it was needed, and while seeing it failed.
Second amendment was like a door with a keyhole protecting the universal human right to own and to carry guns, knives, swords, flamethrowers, and other "arms" from the control freaks on the other side of the door. By putting it in writing, and by creating the illusion of "authority" in the body of the Constitution, the keyhole was created. It probably wasn't smart to install a keyhole at all. A better strategy is always to simply defend yourself from those control freaks- to the point of death if they are (as usual) too stupid to learn from their mistakes, but I'll ignore that for now.
Unfortunately, since there was a keyhole, some stupid, evil, or misguided people felt they needed a key to get at that right- it wasn't safe to just leave it unmolested. That keyhole was originally a fairly tight fit leaving no room for violation of the right to own and to carry weapons. Tyrants didn't like that so they kept fiddling with it. After centuries of wiggling the key, government meddlers have gotten the hole so wallowed out you can now drive a truck through it. That's why there are "laws" against "concealed weapons", openly carried weapons, automatic firearms, normal capacity magazines, short-barreled shotguns, and whatever else some moron decides is "too dangerous" to his plans to rob, rape, and murder- I mean "protect" you.
I will never mourn the death of any anti-liberty bigot- especially if his death comes as a result of trying to infringe on the right to own and to carry weapons. Some acts just need to lead to death every single time they are performed. I will also not condemn anyone who kills one of those anti-liberty bigots, even while recognizing that sometimes, the right thing isn't the smartest thing to do.
That is just the reality of the world as it is.
.
And, every person alive has the exact same right to own and to carry weapons regardless of whether the Second Amendment exists, and regardless of where that person may be.
However, I can see what the Second Amendment was supposed to do without saying it was needed, and while seeing it failed.
Second amendment was like a door with a keyhole protecting the universal human right to own and to carry guns, knives, swords, flamethrowers, and other "arms" from the control freaks on the other side of the door. By putting it in writing, and by creating the illusion of "authority" in the body of the Constitution, the keyhole was created. It probably wasn't smart to install a keyhole at all. A better strategy is always to simply defend yourself from those control freaks- to the point of death if they are (as usual) too stupid to learn from their mistakes, but I'll ignore that for now.
Unfortunately, since there was a keyhole, some stupid, evil, or misguided people felt they needed a key to get at that right- it wasn't safe to just leave it unmolested. That keyhole was originally a fairly tight fit leaving no room for violation of the right to own and to carry weapons. Tyrants didn't like that so they kept fiddling with it. After centuries of wiggling the key, government meddlers have gotten the hole so wallowed out you can now drive a truck through it. That's why there are "laws" against "concealed weapons", openly carried weapons, automatic firearms, normal capacity magazines, short-barreled shotguns, and whatever else some moron decides is "too dangerous" to his plans to rob, rape, and murder- I mean "protect" you.
I will never mourn the death of any anti-liberty bigot- especially if his death comes as a result of trying to infringe on the right to own and to carry weapons. Some acts just need to lead to death every single time they are performed. I will also not condemn anyone who kills one of those anti-liberty bigots, even while recognizing that sometimes, the right thing isn't the smartest thing to do.
That is just the reality of the world as it is.
.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Breaking Bad? Breaking Best!
I have never watched an episode of "Breaking Bad"- it's just not the kind of thing that interests me. I have no problem with someone making meth- I do have a problem with someone using aggression to ... well, do anything.
From what I have heard, the term "breaking bad" means that at some point, a person will have a choice to go either "good" or bad" and some may fall- "break"- to the bad side, which becomes self-perpetuating and leads somewhere you might not have expected. Like a teacher becoming a meth kingpin.
I guess there are many things like that in life, points where a small, seemingly insignificant choice will tip the scales either to the right side or the wrong side.
When you find yourself at those points, I hope you "break good"- to the libertarian side. And, even more than that, I hope all those small choices add up to you "Breaking Best"- anarchist!
.
From what I have heard, the term "breaking bad" means that at some point, a person will have a choice to go either "good" or bad" and some may fall- "break"- to the bad side, which becomes self-perpetuating and leads somewhere you might not have expected. Like a teacher becoming a meth kingpin.
I guess there are many things like that in life, points where a small, seemingly insignificant choice will tip the scales either to the right side or the wrong side.
When you find yourself at those points, I hope you "break good"- to the libertarian side. And, even more than that, I hope all those small choices add up to you "Breaking Best"- anarchist!
.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
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
.
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.
-
.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
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 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!
.
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:
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.
.
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.
.
Monday, March 10, 2014
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.
.
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.
.
Sunday, March 09, 2014
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.
.
(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.
.
Saturday, March 08, 2014
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.
.
Friday, March 07, 2014
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.)
.
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.)
.
Thursday, March 06, 2014
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.
.
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.
.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
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.
.
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.
.
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
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.
.
(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?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)