"So, Kent, What did YOU do today?"

Well, now that you asked...

High winds (and blowing dirt and sand- see the color of the sky?) were terrible today, and took out the one tree on the property. The carport took a hit.

Had some family and neighbors come help, and the tree is cut up somewhat and now piled off to the side, and the carport is propped back up- more or less straight- with chains and whatnot. Mostly to keep it from falling into the house if it decides to topple.

No "official" contact of any sort- which I'm glad for. The tree was out in the street a bit for a while, as were some "support vehicles" as we worked.

My daughter missed an event due to the minor disaster, which happened not long before we were to leave, and was so upset over the property damage that she was throwing up.

Now, I am hopeful I can get some things repaired and the tree hauled away (it would be pretty much worthless for firewood- it's rotten Siberian elm) without spending much. Free would be good.

I hope your day was not so eventful.

Added: Here are a couple of pictures of what's left of the tree (along with my daughter hamming it up for the camera).

.

Bullies galore, blind to their own evil

There's an inevitable wedge driven between me and most of the people around me because they think it's OK to beat me up to force me to do what they want- whether I am harming any innocent person with my behavior or not. I don't pretend it's alright to do the same to them.

Sure, few of them are willing to do it in person- they'd rather pretend it's "government" doing the beating, instead- in the name of enforcing Holy Laws.

But as long as they support that "government", and its counterfeit rules, they might as well be personally throwing the punches. In fact, I'd prefer that level of honesty to this self-deception they wallow in.

How about you?

.

Who needs police?

No one "needs" cops.

People have been fooled into believing they do by having their rights violated and reserved for police only.

It's like being conked on the head, having your arms tied behind your back, and then saying "but how can I feed myself and wipe my butt without someone doing it for me?" Simple. Remove the bonds and do what you always had a right to do.

You don't need anyone to do it for you- especially not those vermin who are trying to prevent you from doing it yourself.

.

Day by Day: Time's Up again!

Day by Day, April 25, 2014:

Thanks again, Chris!

.

Fellating enforcers at gunpoint

I've long suspected there was some sort of a perverted sexual thrill that drove much enforcer behavior, but I just had another realization which seems to confirm it. It's the Breathalyzer- thought of forever more, in my mind, as the "coward's cock".

Which, once more, re-enforces in my mind the notion that almost everything a cop does is some form of rape- or worse.

"Blow me, Citizen!"

And, just imagine, some people still think of these parasites as the "good guys"!

(Sorry that this one is a bit less "family friendly" than usual, but seriously- the title...)

.

Brain re-wiring

Let's suppose you have a friend who has volunteered for an experiment*. His brain will be wired to a device, and when activated, this device will make him feel happy (at least temporarily) and powerful. It may even eventually make him wealthy.

It also has a 95% chance- or greater- of changing his personality and making him a bad person. His previous ethical or moral reluctance to steal and aggress will be short-circuited.

And he's asking you to be the one to push the button to start the device.

Would you do it?

What if it takes two people to push buttons simultaneously? Would you be willing to share half of the responsibility? Remember, your friend wants this. What if there are millions of buttons that would all have to be pushed to activate the experiment? What if "authority" figures tell you it is your duty to push the button, and your other friends, family, and neighbors all agree? They say you should be ashamed if you refuse. Why do I see shades of Milgram?

This is the same thing as voting for a decent person who wants a political office. Only, in this real-world experiment, those who push the button and those who refuse will all be victimized by your friend after he gets what he wants and is changed.

How can you consent to be among those who do this to a good person?

-

*Of course, it's not really an "experiment" since it has been done multiple millions of times with the same results- you know how this will end unless you are successful at deluding yourself.

.

Supporting liberty not contradictory

Supporting liberty not contradictory

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 21, 2014)

What is a quick way to cause confusion? Advocate liberty consistently and watch what happens.

I'll use myself as an illustration:

I am a firm believer in the high value of education, therefore I am not a fan of public schooling, nor any schooling based upon the same template.

I hate aggressive violence which threatens the innocent, therefore I actively and publicly oppose all anti-gun "laws".

I know the necessity of good, safe roads for all aspects of life and liberty, and therefore I don't appreciate seeing government employees patrolling and controlling them.

I crusade for property rights, opposing all theft and aggression against individuals, therefore I want nothing to do with laws or courts, and have no respect for either.

I hate to see people destroy their lives through addictions, therefore I expose prohibition for the unconstitutional and inhumane abomination it is.

These positions only seem contradictory to people who refuse to notice the actual, real-world results of the state's approach. Once you dig to the bottom of things you can see the world in a much clearer, brighter way than before.

But, getting to the bottom of things can make one unpopular. It means calling a spade a spade, no matter how much others wish to see it as something else. It means digging up problems with favored institutions and other things which many people are emotionally attached to, and exposing bad sides people would prefer to not face.

It means recognizing that schools based upon the "Prussian Model", as are all schools in America, were never meant to educate, but to indoctrinate and pacify.

It means understanding that anti-gun "laws" only restrain those who are not bad guys in the first place, leaving the real thugs free to prey at will.

It means knowing governments don't build roads, nor are they held accountable for the road conditions or damage their roads cause, all the while claiming use of "their" roads implies consent to give up all your basic human rights in the name of "safety". This is nonsense.

It means admitting the greatest threat which has ever existed to property, as well as to life and liberty, is (and has always been) people calling themselves "government" of one sort or another. Real restitution is a low priority for them, compared to enriching the state's treasury and paying for the bureaucracy.

It means seeing that the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs- Prohibition- has created the market for more concentrated, and more dangerous, substances, and causes people to not seek help they might otherwise want, out of fear of the disproportionate consequences.

Being consistent in support of liberty only looks contradictory until you examine the alternative.
.

Kids' problems

I was watching kids playing at the park while there with my daughter. I noticed what happened when kids encountered problems. They solved them.

For one example: There is a ring that the kids can hang from and ride as it slides from one end of a track to another. Only it binds up in the middle and if a kid doesn't have enough momentum, it will stop before they get to the other end. And most kids are not tall enough to reach the ring when it is not by one of the end platforms. So, when it gets stuck they'll work together. Or they'll try jumping at the ring to knock it to one end where they can reach it. They'll try to find a taller kid or adult. They'll find a tool (tree branch) to extend their reach. But, always, they find a solution.

Kids solve their own problems if not interfered with. Give them the liberty to find their own solutions. It will make them smarter and stronger than if you coddle them.

Now, kids are not perfect- just like adults aren't. Some think it's OK to initiate force or to steal. Some can be very cruel. Let's not give them bad examples by our behavior, and certainly let's not place the worst of the worst- cops and politicians- on some kind of pedestal and pretend these are people for kids to look up to or emulate.

.

"Name one..."

Recently I saw a person ask to be shown a society or culture anywhere in the world which has been based on Zero Aggression.

OK. Sure. No problem.

My society is grounded in Zero Aggression. I don't attack those around me, and I don't respond well to those who do. The aggressors out there are not a part of my society.

It seems the culture around me is based on Zero Aggression, too. Those who use aggression and theft are not "my society" or "my culture". They are alien to me.

I'm not sure why that's hard for anyone to understand.

.

Gratitude, or its opposite.

I was just listening to a video from a pretty "famous" (as these things go) libertarian/anarchist guy where he was complaining about a small donation he got. He went on about the value of what he was providing, and talked about if you don't "put your money where your mouth is" no one will listen when you say the free market and charity can fill the role of The State.

I was embarrassed listening to him.

Now, he did somewhat temper his message a little later in his video, and made some really good points about having a passion for what you claim to believe- but I almost didn't get past the first few minutes.

I have never complained or ridiculed any donation I have gotten. Not even in the privacy of my own head. Nor do I expect people to pay for what I do or to feel guilty if they don't pay something. And I am certainly not going to publicly scold- even anonymously- someone who actually donated money to me. That's just not the way this works.

Some people can't afford to donate- I get that and it's perfectly OK. I still want them to get what they can from what I write. I'm convinced they can make my life better that way, while improving the quality of their own lives even more. A deeper understanding of liberty can only benefit everyone.

Nor do I have some delusion that I "deserve" donations more than someone else does. There are more deserving and more "important" liberty advocates out there who are more valuable than I am, and do much more important work. Maybe even the guy who was complaining about the small donation.

I also know that everyone has a life. It's an honor to even be a tiny blip on their daily calendar, and no one is obligated to sit around and dwell on me in any way.

I'm not sure why his complaint disturbed me so badly- it may be that it just seemed so ungrateful.

You don't "owe" me anything by reading my blog. And please don't ever get the idea that I believe you do!

.

"I aim to misbehave!"

Day by Day today:

(click to... well, you know...)

I love seeing the flag make appearances.

Thanks, Chris!

.

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...

.