Fear and ignorance banished! (I wish...)

Here's my response to the letter to the editor in the State Line Tribune. Be sure to read the letter first, if you haven't yet. This response is way too long to be a Liberty Lines column, so I will put it here. That's what happens when there are a lot of things to address, and you end up needing to quote parts of the original for clarity. I apologize for the length. Here we go:

"The problem is the longer the virus [libertarianism] is allowed to fester and spread, the patient begins to lose sense of reality"

Really? Let's look at that contention.

"Utopian lawless world..."

Now that's hilarious. The most delusional Utopian dream man ever fell for was the belief that because some men are bad you should give some men authority over everyone else. What has been clearly demonstrated by doing that is that the least trustworthy are drawn to those positions of power like kids to candy being tossed from a parade float. Then they always attempt to replace Law with made up rules.

Libertarianism is a rejection of Utopianism and a recognition of the reality of human nature. People will do what they feel is best for themselves. Even if they are wrong. Even at the expense of others. To set up a system that gives them power over others leads to the same result over and over again, as demonstrated by history. Statism is the most Utopian wish ever foisted on humanity- and it still keeps reeling them in even after failing to deliver as promised every single time it has been tried, in every single incarnation, throughout thousands of years of history. Talk about a blindness to reality!

Libertarians don't reject law; we reject counterfeit "law". Real law- known as "Natural Law"- is limited to "Don't attack anyone", "Do what you say you'll do", and "Don't take or damage other people's stuff". Counterfeit "law" is written by flawed humans and generally carves out exceptions to Natural Law for "select people". Natural Law doesn't need to be written or enforced; counterfeit "law", when written or enforced, makes you the bad guy.

"...Utopian lawless world where all bad behaviors are kept in check by the threat of 'restitution'".

Nope. You missed that one by a mile. Self defense has always been the best way to keep bad behaviors in check. Regardless of your "laws" and enforcers. Restitution only gets put into play when the bad guys survive. Our current "system" protects bad guys from the real-world consequences their behavior should bring.

"Then, and only then, will any law of punishment or repayment to society come into force."

First of all, "society" can't be a victim. If there is not a specific, individual victim, then no one is subject to self defense nor owes any restitution. Secondly, when would you propose to punish people? Before they have harmed anyone? Quick, call the Department of Pre-Crime!

"Reality says the human population is not very good at making behavioral decisions."

I agree, otherwise government would long ago have been relegated to a festering corpse on the garbage heap of history. However, other people's poor decisions aren't your business. Sorry. You can take measures to protect yourself and your property, but no one can ever have the authority to make other people's decisions for them, no matter how bad you believe them to be.

"Unfortunately, there IS a need for a minimum amount of laws to govern a functioning and prosperous society."

Already got that covered, as above. Anything beyond Natural Law is excessive, not "minimum" by any means, and only harms the functioning and prosperity of your society.

"Having law, and people being aware of it does help inform of where the boundaries are."

And that is part of the reason anything beyond Natural Law is harmful to all law. It dilutes it with worthlessness. When the boundaries are arbitrary and based upon things other than aggression or theft, no one really knows what the "law" is or where the boundaries may be. Counterfeit "laws" are the opposite of Law, and confuse people about what is actually right and wrong. They are not "holy" nor "just" nor "good". Counterfeit Law" damages society because it damages individuals.

"... the debate is where can we find a balance?"

Maybe, if you are desperate to find justification for running the lives of your neighbors, you can debate that. What is just the "perfect amount of rape" you'd like to permit? I am under no such disability to feel the need to debate such things. There is no balance between Rightful Liberty and counterfeit "laws". It's like trying to find a balance between poison and food- how much poison is the right amount to add to the food? Poison always wins that contest.

"...as Libertarians advocate where drugs and prostitution are freely consumed, DWI laws and traffic control signs are non-existent, leads us to the other problem."

You, maybe. I'm amused to know the only thing keeping you from being a drug-addicted sampler of "the oldest profession" are government's "laws". Funny, but those "laws" don't seem to stop most people who really want those things. If a person drives drunk and causes harm, he is in the wrong. Just as he is if he drives sober and causes harm. And, the funny thing is that the places around the world which have gotten rid of the anti-drug "laws", anti-prostitution "laws", and yes, even the traffic control signals, have discovered that the vast majority of the problems the naysayers feared never materialized. In fact, much of the bad effects of those things went away after the "laws" got out of the way. There was no "other problem" like the statists kept fearing there would be. Unless it really is liberty, peace, and cooperation they fear and consider a "problem".

"Humans making bad decisions result in bad consequences. Namely, the loss of innocent life."

Yeah, and we've all seen that "laws" prevent that. Right?
Bad decisions should bring bad consequences. And the innocent should never be under the illusion that "laws" will protect them or remove some of their own responsibility for watching out for themselves. Reliance on "laws" has been disastrous, and has made people weak and careless.

"It is government's God-given authority to punish evil and reward good."

You have grossly misread Romans 13 if you believe that is what it is saying. But, even if that were the message, no government in the entire history of the world has ever done that. Not one. Instead, all governments have done the opposite. And, the government authority referred to in Romans 13 is not what you seem to think it is. In America, there is no government authority besides the Constitution. When "laws" or "authorities" do things which violate the Constitution, they are not the rulers or governors spoken of in Romans or 1 Peter because they are "a terror to good works" and fully on the side of evil; they are not your authority and obeying them is disobeying Romans 13. Notice that anti-drug "laws", DWI "laws", anti-prostitution "laws", traffic control "laws" are not in any way permitted by the Constitution. Not one of them. I never remember reading about Jesus advocating making even one thing "illegal" according to the state. There is a vast difference between what you should morally do, and what should be subject to state punishment. Don't soil your faith by stitching it together with the state.

"...the intention of protecting the innocent before they are injured."

Yes, you should when you can. But remember that a person who hasn't yet harmed anyone is also innocent. You can protect both, but not with laws" which violate both instead. So, how can you protect the innocent before they are injured? The best, most sure way is by teaching them self responsibility; not dependence. There is only one person you can always count on to be there when danger comes: you. By bubble-wrapping the whole world with "laws" you get the illusion of safety, but instead remove any incentive to be accountable for your own life and safety. Would I rather have "checkpoints" molesting drivers in the name of DWI reduction, or would I rather teach my kids that while driving or walking, anything can happen and they need to stay alert and pay attention to their surroundings? Would I rather have DWI "checkpoints" with draconian punishments that cause people to take bigger risks because it's just too dangerous to admit you may need to pull over and sleep it off or ask someone for a ride? Either completely responsible and reasonable action brings swift and vicious punishment today, if "law enforcement" happens to find out. That doesn't make things safer for anyone.

"In a civil society, those who engage in 'evil' can be expected to be preempted hopefully before their destruction (or aggression) is allowed to come to fruition."

So, since I consider your advocacy of "laws" against Rightful Liberty to be evil I should preempt you before you can cause harm to me or anyone else who isn't harming anyone with their consensual actions? That's good to know, since I expect you'll be OK with it when I defend myself against your stated intentions. No whining, now!

"...see where a full-blown case of Viral Libertarian-itis is a world of anarchy and chaos."

"Anarchy" doesn't mean what you seem to believe. It means "no king", not "no rules". It means no one else has the right to run your life for you, it doesn't mean you do what you want with no consequences. Anarchy is the only peaceable way to live- everything else is rooted in violence and theft. We all live the vast majority of our lives in anarchy- unless you allowed someone else to dictate who you fell in love with, what you eat for every meal, where you shop, what you wear to bed, who you befriend, what you think about. Anarchy works, in the real world, every single day, for YOU. It doesn't bring chaos- that's what the State brings. "Laws" are not based upon a foundation of Natural Law, and the consequences are out of proportion to the effects of violating those "laws", and this brings chaos into society. You can have government or you can have a society- they are mutually exclusive so you can't have both.

"Where stupid behaviors unabated main, injure, and kill."

What makes you believe- against all evidence to the contrary- that "laws" abate stupid behaviors?
Very often they mandate them. Contrary to your beliefs, and your mischaracterization of libertarians, there is no Utopia- not under liberty and not under your "minimum government". Humans will always do stupid things (like support "laws" and governments, apparently) and innocent people will always be getting maimed, injured, and killed. That's just reality. (You should check it out sometime- it's pretty amazing!)

"Reality says you can't expect people under the influence of mind-altering substances to know where personal space ends and another's begins."

Just like those under the influence of statism, it seems, judging by this letter to the editor which is calling for "laws" to trample all over everyone else's personal space. But, would I advocate making statism "illegal"? Of course not. I will never criticize anyone who defends themselves from it, though.

"Reality says a community full of porn and prostitution breeds broken homes and sexual assaults."

Actually, reality (and observation) has shown the polar opposite where sexual assault is concerned. Study up on it. As far as the broken homes- if they succumb to porn and prostitution they were already broken anyway. You may not "like" it, but it is only your business where your personal life is concerned. You are advocating Sharia Law. It doesn't matter if it is supposedly "Christian" Sharia, it is still wrong.

"Reality says traffic laws, including requiring insurance, protects the responsible drivers from thefoolish."

Oh, good. I guess I can text and drive without paying attention just like cops do. What with all the "laws" and insurance out there protecting me. No?
I think it's a great idea to have liability insurance. Do I want it mandated? Of course not. I'm not an insane control freak. Mandating it is no different than mandating ObamaCare. Do I assume a stop sign will really make the other driver stop? No. I know it has no magical power to force anyone to do anything. I watch people run stop signs responsibly and safely every single day. Including almost every cop car that passes the one by my house. And I don't care. It's not about safety, it's about compliance. Don't molest others on my behalf just because you are frightened of the big old, scary world.

"Reality says basic laws of commerce protect the little old lady from the unscrupulous company."

Wishful thinking. What reality does show is that "basic laws of commerce" aren't basic anymore. That ended when the first "law" that said anything beyond "don't lie about what you are trading, and deliver the goods as promised without coercion" was imposed. The truth is the "basic laws of commerce" were mostly written by giant corporations to hobble their upstart competition. MegaCorp has lots of money and teams of lawyers to allow them to comply with the "laws" they help write- they know their new would-be competitor doesn't.

"But advocating for total unregulated behavior in the substance abuse and traffic world..."

Who advocated that? Just because you don't have legislation doesn't mean there is no way to "regulate" something. Don't like drug users? Don't hire them. (And if you can't tell if they are a drug user without a chemistry set, then you are simply looking for a way to "legally" rape them and steal their fluids.)
As for traffic, the phenomenon of spontaneous order makes traffic flow much smoother once the silly rules get tossed aside. Look at the cases of cities where all traffic controls have been discarded. It didn't result in chaos and death- it actually resulted in shorter commute times, and fewer accidents and injuries. Liberty always works.

"disrupts real dialog and political reforms that could be made."

What do you consider "real dialog"? Making up justification for "laws" that have no basis in reality, while claiming the other side is ignoring reality? What kind of "political reforms" would you advocate? Voting out one corrupt politician and replacing him with an interchangeable corrupt politician? Or getting rid of all the vile "liberal" anti-liberty "laws" and replacing them with equally vile "conservative" anti-liberty "laws"? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results... well, it's not sane.

The depth of the brainwashing astounds me. When you have been trained to see a government "solution" to everything it becomes impossible to think outside that particular, confining box. When your only (mental) tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Even when beating it hurts you.

I've been around long enough to see that any and every justification for "law" or The State is flawed. Even those I was at one time most reluctant to turn loose.

Now, I have tried to be "nice" in this response, but why am I reminded of this?

.

Fear and Ignorance

Those are the only two "tactics" I have ever seen whipped out as a defense against liberty.

And, boy, did my most recent Liberty Lines column bring both fear and ignorance out of people!

I will reply to this letter to the editor from poor Brandon (whoever he is...), but I haven't decided yet whether to do it in next month's Liberty Lines, or to just do it here on the blog. (added: here's my response) Either way I wanted y'all to see what I'm up against locally.

So, here ya go (from the State Line Tribune- April 17, 2014):

(Click to enlargenize)

Thomas Jefferson against the Constitution

Still think there's a "social contract" and the Constitution is binding on people who didn't sign it and were born long after its signers were all dead?

Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. The dead are not even things. The particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals, vegetables, or minerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attached the rights and powers they held while in the form of men? A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Maj. John Cartwright, June 5, 1824 (source)

Of course, I adamantly disagree with his assertion that "a generation may bind itself", since that authority belongs only to individuals, not "the collective", but he can't be right about everything.

.

How much evidence do you need?

Bad guys and thugs are going to act like the vermin they are. Don't be surprised, but don't excuse them, either.

Recently I have shown many examples of this truth. Like this, and this, and this. Honestly, the list would be endless if I didn't limit myself to things I have written recently.

How can anyone really still believe these are the "good guys" and are better than any alternative?

So, in my opinion, you shouldn't expect them to treat you with respect- it'll only happen if it's to their advantage. Don't let their evil shock you, and don't let it ruin your day. They are what they are- remember that and act accordingly.

.

Ancestral property theft

Going back to the question of figuring out who stole what from whom generations ago, and who the stolen property should be "returned" to...

I hereby renounce any claim on any property that may or may not have been stolen from one of my ancestors by one of your ancestors, or later obtained in good faith by one of your ancestors, anywhere in the world before my parents were born. Use it in peace.

There, I feel better.

.

Politics is Stockholm Syndrome

Politics is Stockholm Syndrome

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 14, 2014)

I confess: I'm not very interested in politics. Who is campaigning; who holds which office; "laws" being proposed or passed. It all feels like chasing my tail.

So I'm not going to waste much time or effort petitioning government's representatives and enforcers to respect my life, liberty, and property.

Perhaps it's necessary, as self preservation, to know what politicians are up to. It would also be necessary to know what a wild boar was up to after you let him in your living room. But why would you ever tolerate either situation? Why believe replacing one wild boar with an interchangeable wild boar could solve anything?

If I moved into your neighborhood, dictating how you were permitted to live, earn money, and use your property- enforcing my will at the point of a gun- would you put up with it? I sincerely hope not!

To pacify you I might schedule an election- give my permission to poll a sample of your neighbors in an attempt to change the way I use your life and property as you might prefer. What if I ignored your requests? You could elect others, who promise to use your life and property in a way which makes you less uncomfortable, to replace me. How is that different?

Would you instead laugh at my attempts at control and invite me to do a nosedive off a windmill? Rather than trying to decide how much of your property I am entitled to take, would you fight to keep it? When I send my hired guns- hired from among your family and neighbors for a percentage of the take- to collect on my behalf, how would you respond?

Imagine I survived my insolence, and three hundred years from now the system through which the torch of control had been passed was still operating. I never had any business running your life, nor do those who came after me have any legitimate authority over the lives of your descendants, no matter how long it has been going on. Nothing changes that.

Would your descendants defend the legitimacy of "their system", saying it is the best one possible? Would they believe "we" are the government; embracing rulers and bureaucrats and relinquishing essential liberty by holding elections to choose who gets to violate them for the next few years.

"We are the government"? Try to do things government employees do with people's lives, liberties, and property and see how long you get away with it. Those who are permitted, under their own rules, to do those things don't tolerate competition, and Stockholm Syndrome keeps their captives complacent.

That, in a nutshell, is politics.
.

"Death to the IRS and its employees"

Wishing they would all die isn't the same as actively making it happen. No, I am not suggesting you go out and start hunting IRS employees. But doing so is no more wrong than defending yourself from any other violator of your property, so it doesn't bring my condemnation, either.

The IRS has the "authority" of the mugger: "Your money or your life!" uttered at gunpoint. So anyone who kills an IRS agent who has made "official" contact is no more guilty than anyone who manages to "get the drop" on a mugger in a back alley.

Unfortunately, the IRS agent has a huge and violent gang, along with the idiotic and ignorant support of our neighbors. Or, if not "support", at least the ignorant belief that the IRS employee is doing something that doesn't deserve death. But theft is theft- it isn't "better" or less evil if it is committed by a person with an office.

And, even if you have the right to do something, it isn't always the smartest thing to do. In the current statist climate, defending your life, liberty, and property from these thieves would probably be suicide.

IRS employees could make it right in an instant by walking away from the "job" and by never stealing again. In that case they should be left alone unless they break their word. I'm willing to forgive.

But, I will never condemn any person who defends his life, liberty, or property from violators of any sort.

-

And here's a related post from Libertopia.

Who owns the Bundy Ranch?

I know some people are complaining that the Bundy's don't actually "own" the land they live on, much less the BLM-claimed land they have been using.

That land belonged to the Native tribes before being stolen by some "white" settlers or a "white" government. Then it was bought or leased from the thieves.

Yeah, and before that the Native tribe who lived there at that time stole it from some other Natives who lived there and who had probably stolen it from someone before them and so on since the first humans came to North America. The story is the same world wide.

It's sad, and WRONG, to take land (or any other property) which doesn't belong to you. But, Mr. Bundy* didn't steal that land. No one who originally owned that land before someone stole it is still alive, and some undoubtedly left no descendants whatsoever, having been wiped out in the process of having their land stolen.

Sometimes there is just no way to fix a past wrong. What are you going to do? Obsess over it and hate everyone and everything until perfection is achieved?

As I have said multiple times in the past, at some point you just have to wipe the slate clean and forgive past offenses and say "Never again!" That, or you'll never have any peace.

-

*I'm not saying he is necessarily a wonderful guy. I don't know him. Everyone- including myself- has flaws and faults. He may even frequently recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or "support the troops", or something hideous like that. I'm speaking narrowly here. If you can't stand up for the rights of a bad guy when you see him being violated, your support of the good guy in the same situation is cheapened. And no matter how bad Bundy may or may not be, the thugs calling themselves "government" are always worse, and are the ultimate bad guys in this situation. I'm glad they got beaten in this first skirmish of the war. I hope if they try to attack again their loss is even more dramatic.

.

BLM's new mission deserves a new name

Let's just call a spade a spade here.

The BLM has gone into the business of cattle rustling. Maybe they should change their name accordingly: Bureau of Cattle Rustling.

You know what used to happen to cattle rustlers...

.

NSA and Heartbleed

So, if the NSA knew about the "Heartbleed Bug" for years, and used it to spy on people, doesn't that kind of discredit them?

National SECURITY Agency, not protecting security, but exploiting a lack thereof. I'd say that's good enough reason to cancel their budget, sell off their guns and computers, let their employees stand on street corners with signs that say "Will Molest for Food", and see how long they survive in the real world.

.

"Drug warriors" and other evil thugs

Eventually, all those cops, prosecutors, and prison guards who enforce anti-drug "laws" are going to look just as bad to "society" as those thugs who enforced slavery "laws"- particularly and especially like those who captured the slaves who had escaped.

And when I say "eventually" I am talking about how they'll look to people who aren't me. Because to me that's exactly how bad they look right now. I look at cops and I see primitive, ignorant, brutal thugs "earning" their stolen wages by committing evil.

.

The Bundy ranch situation

Do the Bundy's own the land they have been using? Not according to those thugs who claim they work for something they'll call "The State". Who does, then? Well, according to "The State", it does. Sure, they'll say "the taxpayers", but by that they mean they have the authority to control the land "on our behalf". Ha!

Governments aren't real like people are. They are a dangerous mental problem believed in by most people: a mental glitch in the synapses.

Governments can't "own" anything, since everything they (or their agents) possess was stolen or "bought" with stolen (or counterfeited) money.

A thief doesn't own the stolen property he possesses.

The cattle, on the other hand, are clearly owned by the Bundy's. And employees of that "government" are stealing them. And then using violence against people who are trying to not be stolen from. And attacking the people trying to defend the Bundy's from the violence and theft.

That makes the government employees the bad guys in this confrontation.

As they are in any situation they are a part of.

(see also: Who owns the Bundy Ranch?)

.

The sheriff's kneejerk reaction

Here's the local sheriff's hilariously dumb opinion on marijuana legalization, which I suspect was in response to my Liberty Lines column (previous post):

(click on it to see it bigger) 

Hmmm. Am I surprised a local tax addict would object? No. Around here, just about the only possible justification for his useless "tax"-financed "job" hinges on Prohibition*- of one sort or another. Yes, this is also a "dry" county. So, of course he believes (not "thinks") legalization would be "a mistake". He would probably be out of a paycheck and be forced to find honest work or spend more time fishing. 

I see he's worried about "impaired driving"- like it doesn't happen regardless. But, wait... what about the studies and tests which have shown driving under the influence of marijuana actually decreases the risk of being in an accident? I know, that's not helpful to the anti-drug bigots' narrative, so it's ignored. And when have I ever said that someone who harms another or their private property should be excused? What does it matter "why" they caused the accident? It doesn't.

But it would "increase the difficulty of law enforcement to determine who is impaired"! Whine, whine! Yeah, lets keep violating people for your lazy, thuggish convenience! Here's a hint: If you can't tell if someone is "impaired", they aren't. Leave it at that.

Next, he complains how difficult it would be to figure out if the Cannabis was obtained through "legal or non-legal channels". Idiot. That's like saying slavery shouldn't have been abolished because then it would be too hard for slave hunters to figure out if the person had been "freed legally" or had been a runaway. When what you are doing is wrong, you need to stop doing it; don't figure out how to keep doing it anyway.

"Officers would need education concerning the enforcement of legal sales." No, they wouldn't. This is just more statist propaganda aimed at making liberty look "too hard". Just assume liberty and move along without molesting people. It's really pretty easy.

Same thing with all his excuses about needing more enforcers and bigger budgets if there were fewer "crimes" to feed his lust. It is ALL statist** BS and lies.

Read the whole thing. He just drones on and on, coming up with more unthinking statist justifications for continuing to follow his path of evil. 

But, don't worry- he says it's not going to happen in Texas (or especially locally) because people here are "more conservative".

Conservatives are partly right- there are some things worth conserving. But this isn't one of them. Being wrong- advocating evil- is not worth "conserving", and staying "conservative" on this issue isn't something to be proud of. They should instead be ashamed. When you are going the wrong way, it's smart to stop and turn around, but I suppose "conservatives" such as the sheriff think it's OK to close your eyes and chant about why you have to stay the course as you head over the cliff.

Not only are they going to look foolish in a few years, but they'll be seen as the force for evil they actually are. The blood of multitudes is on their hands over this ridiculous prohibition.

*By way of illustration, here's the weekly "Sheriff's Report" from the same issue:

(Click pic for embiggenation) 

**And I mean this is the worst possible way this time.

.

Liberty Lines- April 10, 2014

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

I wonder how many people thought America's morality was at its end when slavery lost its legal footing. Or when the "Jim Crow" laws which followed slavery were done away with. Probably about as many as now think getting rid of anti-marijuana "laws" spells doom to America's moral foundation.

If your "morality" requires you to violate someone else's individual human right to do absolutely anything that doesn't violate your identical and equal rights, your "morality" is empty. In fact, it is the opposite of moral.

The Prohibitionists of an earlier era realized that to make their campaign "legal" they had to pass a Constitutional amendment- because the Constitution didn't permit any authority to enforce any sort of prohibition. It still doesn't. The current anti-drug prohibition never got even this flimsy veil of legitimacy to hide behind. It was, and is, completely illegal at every level, and enforcing it makes a person a criminal.

That is the real moral problem.

Of course, when something is a violation of a person's rights, not even a Constitutional amendment can make it right. This is why Prohibition is always wrong and why a repeal of the Second Amendment can't eliminate the right to own and to carry weapons. Rights have never hinged on laws.

The worst thing about the new marijuana laws springing up across the country is that they establish a tax for doing something people have always had the right to do- "taxation" is a warm-fuzzy euphemism for theft, and taxes always go to finance new violations of life, liberty, and property.

If you don't believe people should use marijuana, then don't use it yourself, and feel free to ridicule or shun those who do. And if anyone harms an innocent person or private property, regardless of whether or not they are "impaired", seek restitution. Those responses to the situation are completely within your rights. Using the blunt force of The State to impose your wishes on others is not. In fact, it is an example of America's version of Sharia Law; universally imposed on True Believer and Infidel, alike.

By doing this to others you are testifying to your belief in the rightness of having someone else do the same to you, no matter who gains power or authority in the future. In that case, don't whine when you find yourself on the wrong end of a future law.

-

Check out my next post to see the sheriff's (probable) response.

.

The bright side of Obama?

I've heard it said that Obama is the greatest gun salesman in history.

I am beginning to wonder if he's not also the greatest recruiter for liberty of all kinds, as well.

Talking with someone yesterday I recognized a theme I have heard a few times from some unexpected places. People who were "Tea Party", quas-libertarian types becoming more firmly libertarian, or even, dare I say it, anarchist- due to things Obama and his cronies have done, and attempted to do. For them the shine seems to be gone from the Tea Party notion of electing "the right people"- at least for now.

Would I be seeing the same if the other, completely interchangeable, statist monster had won the last election? I don't know. It may be that the mess created by ignoring reality and Natural Law has finally gotten to the point that no matter which tyrant sits at the desk and plots to violate you, the results will be the same, and some people are beginning to see it.

I know there are a lot of people who will continue to support what they have convinced themselves is "their side" even as the fangs pump the poison into their flesh, and no amount of reality is going to change their minds. But, for some of those willing and able to see the truth, it just may be that Obama was the kick in the pants they needed.

At least, I hope so. I'd like to be able to see a bright side to Obama (besides the fact he hasn't been able to do most of the worst things he wants to do).

Now, I hope most of these people don't revert back to their old ways and support the next candidate who promises to be the Anti-Obama... I'll do my best to help them stay strong if they feel tempted.

.

Bureaucracy violates your rights

Bureaucracy violates your rights

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

Legalized? Decriminalized? Why?

Most things wrongly made illegal should instead be ignored, which is difficult for those infected with the lust to control. They are not proper areas of governance under any circumstances. Even under the most well-meaning situations, "there ought to be a law" is misguided. No new law is necessary; the laws which were unethically imposed just need to be repealed, be ignored, or be defied.

To bother to legalize or to decriminalize anything which isn't aggression or theft would seem to imply some government authority in that area of life- where none exists.

For example, in Colorado under the new legalized marijuana laws (which the federal government refuses to honor, violating both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments), banks have been caught up in the confusion. Even those which want to to do business with the perfectly legal marijuana shops are refusing, mainly out of fear of federal retribution for refusing to walk the prohibition line. The state and federal rules are at odds, and even with very meticulous federal guidelines which banks are promised they can follow without fear, the risk of entrapment is too great for most to dare.

Which illustrates just one reason banks should also be freed from federal meddling.

I disagree with those who say "legalize and tax it". Taxation feeds the state. Don't feed the beast; starve it.

It would be much better to admit the Constitution doesn't give any authority for prohibition- as a previous generation of prohibitionists once admitted, since they knew they had to pass an amendment to make their anti-alcohol crusade legal, if not right.

A similar situation of too much "law" exists in those states where laws are passed to make it less legally risky to do what humans have always had an inalienable right to do, and an explicit Constitutional protection of that right which allows zero exceptions: to own and to carry any kind of weapon they wish, wherever they go, openly or concealed as they see fit, regardless of age or legal status, without asking permission of anyone, ever.

It is simply the government employee's duty to comply with the Constitution and not violate the right in any way. Period. Yet, look at the parasitic compliance and enforcement bureaucracy which has grown around that very simple human right. There are taxes, license fees, transfer fees, background check fees, etc. All feeding the bureaucracy established for no other reason than to break the law that binds them- and violate your rights.

Those who seek to rule your life would do well to butt out and mind their own business, which means not giving everything a legal status.

.

How I think bloggish thoughts

In one of my dozens of spam comments (which Blogger intercepts before you ever see them) the "question" (before the spamiferous link) was posed: "How do you clear your head and center yourself before you write?"

Now that's a spammerbot which deserves an answer.

The way I have found that works best for me is to read my emails, and check posts on Facebook, check out some news stories- and then go do something.

I have blogs write themselves while I shower. Or cut and split firewood. Or do some clothing/hat repair. Or just about anything that gets my mind off writing, without tying my mind up with something else.

It helps if my hands are busy with something (no comments about the shower!) but my thinking brain is unoccupied. I used to find scraping deer or elk hides was a never-ending source of ideas- but that was mostly before I started writing- such a shame (although I did pen a few letters to the editor during those years). Just sitting staring into a fire doesn't work that well for me. Because my hands usually aren't busy, I suppose.

Busy hands; bored brain. When I have trouble finding something to write about, it is usually because one part of that formula is missing. Does that qualify as clearing my head and centering myself?

Now, when I write my Clovis News Journal columns there are two additional steps. After I write what I want to say, I go back and make sure it isn't too long- which always means cutting out an awful lot of words. Then, I go back and find ways to "tone it down" without compromising the message at all- and that's even harder than cutting out words and points I think are important to what I need to say.

So now you know.

.

"Mistakes were made..."

When the first person initiated force or theft and was allowed to live...
And when the first person fell for the belief in "authority"...
Which led to those who survived their initiation of force and theft setting themselves up as "government".
When the first govthug made up a rule that wasn't based upon Natural Law.
When a "standing military" was permitted.
When that military was used in wars of aggression.
When "laws" against owning and carrying certain weapons were imposed and not defied universally.
When those rules were applied to people whose ONE JOB (whether it's a legitimate "job" or not) is to use weapons.
And that leads directly to a government pawn killing government pawns in a "gun free zone"- Ft. Hood.
And, yes, it is a "gun free zone" anytime the right to own and to carry weapons is violated in any way, and there are "authorized" armed people singled out as above the rule.

And, as long as those same old mistakes keep being made, the same thing will keep happening. The enormity of the stupidity is astounding.

.

Warlords

A new post on my Libertopia blog: The fate of the Warlord

.

If smoking pot is wrong...

If smoking pot is wrong, then taking aspirin is wrong. 

If smoking pot is wrong, then taking Prozac is wrong.

I don't believe doing any of those things is wrong. 

Taking too much aspirin or too much Prozac can be bad for your health. Maybe smoking "too much" marijuana might also be unhealthy- or maybe not. But that is a separate issue, not a matter of right or wrong.

The claim that smoking pot is somehow wrong is among the silliest things I have ever heard anyone espouse.

.