If people choose to destroy their own lives with drug abuse, that is their right. The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is often "justified" by the fact that drug abusers don't just destroy their own lives, but the lives of innocent people around them, too.
Well, guess what- so does the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.
People who were doing nothing wrong are murdered in their homes by drug enforcers showing up at the wrong address. Or the "right" address when no one there is even accused of initiating force or violating private property in any way.
If those in favor of prohibition were honest they would have to see that those deaths cancel out any supposed benefit of the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs saving the innocent victims of drug abusers. If. But they aren't honest.
Nope. They'll start pulling out numbers and statistics. None of those numbers matter to an innocent baby or grandmother who just happens to be unfortunate enough to become one more number or statistic.
Drug abuse isn't smart. Using your addiction or habit as an excuse for violating people or their property is wrong. Harming an innocent is tragic and incurs a debt you probably can't afford. But the drug war is even worse. In that case innocent people are harmed and it's just "Oh, well. That's the world we live in. It's worth it to fight this plague." No, it isn't.
Support for prohibition is wrong. It's evil. It's disgusting.
.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Politicians useless, irrelevant
Politicians useless, irrelevant
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 23, 2014. I can actually say the headline which was written for this one is much more harsh than the tone of my column was intended to be.)
Many people are terribly obsessed over what a tiny minority of rather unimportant and silly people are doing. It would be funny if it didn't waste so much life. So much time and space is taken up by the news media discussing them, and so much time is spent by individuals debating which one is best, which one is worst, who they like and who they hate, and who did what to whom.
No, I'm not talking about Miley, Kanye, or the cosmetically altered Star Trek aliens (oh, wait, that's Kardashian, not Cardassian), although those celebrities are silly and unimportant too. The unimportant people I speak of are politicians. Yet serious people laugh at those who are consumed with celebrities while acting as though those who follow the political realm are more high-minded. It's two sides of the same corroded zinc penny.
I understand why people pay attention to politicians. Somehow things have gotten twisted around upside down and backward so any ill-advised notion which gets into a politician's head can wind up written down somewhere and enforced as though it were law- but nothing which violates human liberty can ever be a real law. Of those real laws, there are only three: don't use force against someone who didn't strike first; don't violate other people's property; do what you say you'll do. Anything else can't be a law, but only a made up rule. It's "mala prohibitum"- which means the prohibited action or thing is not wrong, it's just illegal.
I suppose this unearned power is why people hang on every word politicians utter, and why they pay attention to the ridiculous things they do.
You don't need politicians- they need you. If you stop paying attention to them, stop letting them shrink the boundaries of your life with their silly law tantrums, and start living your Rightful Liberty to its fullest- just as the founders of America intended- you'll quickly see how irrelevant they truly are.
When enough people stop consenting and stop complying, the support will be pulled out from under their feet and the politicians will tumble right over the cliff, like a giant statue topples when the sand supporting its foundation sifts away. This is why they work so hard to fool you into believing they are important to your life and without them society would collapse. If you ever see through the lie you'll have taken away every last scrap of their power.
One of my fondest wishes for you is that you'll eventually see them for what they really are, and in that moment, take back your authority over your life.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 23, 2014. I can actually say the headline which was written for this one is much more harsh than the tone of my column was intended to be.)
Many people are terribly obsessed over what a tiny minority of rather unimportant and silly people are doing. It would be funny if it didn't waste so much life. So much time and space is taken up by the news media discussing them, and so much time is spent by individuals debating which one is best, which one is worst, who they like and who they hate, and who did what to whom.
No, I'm not talking about Miley, Kanye, or the cosmetically altered Star Trek aliens (oh, wait, that's Kardashian, not Cardassian), although those celebrities are silly and unimportant too. The unimportant people I speak of are politicians. Yet serious people laugh at those who are consumed with celebrities while acting as though those who follow the political realm are more high-minded. It's two sides of the same corroded zinc penny.
I understand why people pay attention to politicians. Somehow things have gotten twisted around upside down and backward so any ill-advised notion which gets into a politician's head can wind up written down somewhere and enforced as though it were law- but nothing which violates human liberty can ever be a real law. Of those real laws, there are only three: don't use force against someone who didn't strike first; don't violate other people's property; do what you say you'll do. Anything else can't be a law, but only a made up rule. It's "mala prohibitum"- which means the prohibited action or thing is not wrong, it's just illegal.
I suppose this unearned power is why people hang on every word politicians utter, and why they pay attention to the ridiculous things they do.
You don't need politicians- they need you. If you stop paying attention to them, stop letting them shrink the boundaries of your life with their silly law tantrums, and start living your Rightful Liberty to its fullest- just as the founders of America intended- you'll quickly see how irrelevant they truly are.
When enough people stop consenting and stop complying, the support will be pulled out from under their feet and the politicians will tumble right over the cliff, like a giant statue topples when the sand supporting its foundation sifts away. This is why they work so hard to fool you into believing they are important to your life and without them society would collapse. If you ever see through the lie you'll have taken away every last scrap of their power.
One of my fondest wishes for you is that you'll eventually see them for what they really are, and in that moment, take back your authority over your life.
.
Misguided fears
Are you scared of Muslims? Wake up! (And I hate hearing or saying "wake up!")
Cops and their religion of officer safety, combined with "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them", are much more dangerous to you, personally, than the vast majority of Muslims will ever be.
You will probably never even personally see a dangerously radical Muslim, but how many dangerously radical cops do you run across in a day? You don't know, but since they are all wearing the visible gang symbols- the badge and uniform- you had better assume they have chosen to stand against you.
It frustrates me that people will rant endlessly about some threat from people they'll never encounter, while worshiping the brutal thugs they see every single day.
Worry about defanging the real and present threat, then we can move on to things that are less likely. And, make sure no religious notions are EVER allowed to become "law" or to be otherwise imposed by "government" and the threat shrinks even further- down to as close to nothing as is possible in this imperfect Universe.
.
Cops and their religion of officer safety, combined with "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them", are much more dangerous to you, personally, than the vast majority of Muslims will ever be.
You will probably never even personally see a dangerously radical Muslim, but how many dangerously radical cops do you run across in a day? You don't know, but since they are all wearing the visible gang symbols- the badge and uniform- you had better assume they have chosen to stand against you.
It frustrates me that people will rant endlessly about some threat from people they'll never encounter, while worshiping the brutal thugs they see every single day.
Worry about defanging the real and present threat, then we can move on to things that are less likely. And, make sure no religious notions are EVER allowed to become "law" or to be otherwise imposed by "government" and the threat shrinks even further- down to as close to nothing as is possible in this imperfect Universe.
.
Monday, June 23, 2014
L. Neil, you magnificent ... thinker. ;)
To anyone who knows how to look, what's heartbreakingly obvious—and more painful to me than I can possibly express—is that we, the United States of America, have, by fits and starts, become the very evil that we have always believed we were fighting. Our young soldiers are invaders, villains, no matter how they look or sound, not heroes or liberators, as they claim—or it is claimed for them. By any objective standard, they are being killed by people trying to protect their property, their rights, and the way that they choose to live their lives, no matter how repulsive and abhorrent that may seem to us.
My only quibble is that there is no "we", I am NOT a part of this and it isn't being done on my behalf, and "the United States of America" exists only in certain minds.
I recommend you go read the whole thing in this week's issue of The Libertarian Enterprise.
.
I recommend you go read the whole thing in this week's issue of The Libertarian Enterprise.
.
"Freedom? Here, let me take that for you."
There are psychological defects that go along with becoming a politician. First of all they think everything is theirs to control and use. And they also think every human activity needs to be regulated.
Just look at this article for example: Commissioner considering land use policy
Sure...
"Opportunities"? Does that mean he sees every woman as a "raping opportunity" or every car as a "theft opportunity"? That is only exciting to a control freak.
That's still socialism. Crowdsourcing evil is still evil. I have no more "right" to say what my neighbor does on his own property than does a dictator.
Just look at this article for example: Commissioner considering land use policy
"Lack of zoning and other regulations have meant that Curry County has little control over what is imposed within its limits."Yeah, heaven forbid there's a little bit of freedom you perverts haven't yet outlawed.
And, what was that back up there in the first two paragraphs?
"Curry County has little control over what is imposed within its limits." "...help the county achieve more jurisdiction over its land."
Oh no, the land isn't "its (Curry County's) land" that you seek to violate through control- it belongs to the individual owners, ONLY. Hands (and "laws") off!
But, it's about "protecting" you- or at least the local power-grabbers:
"A land use policy, Bostwick said, can help give an area some protection from federal regulations — of particular concern are those regulations that pertain to the Endangered Species Act or the Environmental Protection Agency."
So, in the name of protecting residents from the feds, you steal more false "authority" for yourselves.
What's worse: the tyrant thousands of miles away whom you can ignore without him even noticing (unless some slimy local statist wants to report you for a chance at a pat on the head), or the tyrant next door who can drive past your property every day?
What's worse: the tyrant thousands of miles away whom you can ignore without him even noticing (unless some slimy local statist wants to report you for a chance at a pat on the head), or the tyrant next door who can drive past your property every day?
"A land use policy would also allow the county control over businesses, though Bostwick insists the renewed interest has nothing to do with a recently proposed strip club."
Sure...
"A land use policy allows officials to designate an area’s best use.""Best use"? Determined by who? Not the property's owners, I am certain. What if your idea of "best use" is wrong, and yet you impose your will on me anyway, when my idea would be better? Or just as good. What if the reality is that there are many different equally good possible uses for a piece of land? Or what if I, as the owner, want to use it in a way you don't consider "best"? Well, in that case you should jump off a bridge into molten lava instead of imposing your will on the property owner.
"There are zoning opportunities in the land use policy,"
"Opportunities"? Does that mean he sees every woman as a "raping opportunity" or every car as a "theft opportunity"? That is only exciting to a control freak.
"Bostwick and Pyle said it will be the residents of Curry County who would have to help determine what the county’s best use actually is under a land use policy."
That's still socialism. Crowdsourcing evil is still evil. I have no more "right" to say what my neighbor does on his own property than does a dictator.
"We’re going to engage the public."
Is that like asking your victim if she'd prefer to be beheaded or drawn and quartered? What if "the public" just says "No!"?
Interesting word, "engage". In war, the soldiers often say they are going to "engage the enemy"- so I guess "the public" should understand how they are viewed by these control freaks.
So, yeah, just look at how these people think. They are entitled to your property- Oh, they'll still let you "own" it so they can keep collecting the ransom ("property tax"), but the ultimate control, they believe, is theirs.
I think a wake up call for all molesters of this sort is long overdue.
.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
The inconsistency of statism
Almost everyone, libertarian or not, agrees it is wrong to initiate force.
In case you don't understand the term "initiate force" it means to be the first one to throw a punch. To be the attacker. The aggressor. To be the one who "starts it" by the physical act of "laying on of hands"- or making a credible threat to do so. If someone is calling you names, and you punch him, you are the bad guy. Sorry.
Where some people disagree with libertarians is that they realize it is wrong to initiate force, but they believe they can carve out an exception for people calling themselves "government". Whether that individual is a cop, or in the military, or whatever.
The only way that could be OK is if you have the right to initiate force, and you loan that authority to someone else. But you don't have that right. You can't give away what isn't yours to give. No one, calling themselves "government" or anything else, can have any rights or authority that everyone else doesn't possess.
You have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to defend your property. So does every other person on the planet, regardless of circumstances, "job", location, past, anything.
You do not have the right to point your finger at anyone else and say they can't carry a gun, smoke a leaf, grow some plants, keep a wolf in their living room, drive their own car without getting a license from you, live anywhere they can buy or rent a house, build a house on their own property, travel across property that doesn't belong to you, etc. Since you don't have those rights or that authority, you can't pretend to give someone else those powers on your behalf. And you most certainly can't pretend you give them those powers on MY behalf. I DO NOT consent!!
This is the problem with statism: the blatant inconsistency inherent to it. Consistency doesn't necessarily mean you are right- you can be consistently wrong- but inconsistency is a sure sign you are wrong.
.
In case you don't understand the term "initiate force" it means to be the first one to throw a punch. To be the attacker. The aggressor. To be the one who "starts it" by the physical act of "laying on of hands"- or making a credible threat to do so. If someone is calling you names, and you punch him, you are the bad guy. Sorry.
Where some people disagree with libertarians is that they realize it is wrong to initiate force, but they believe they can carve out an exception for people calling themselves "government". Whether that individual is a cop, or in the military, or whatever.
The only way that could be OK is if you have the right to initiate force, and you loan that authority to someone else. But you don't have that right. You can't give away what isn't yours to give. No one, calling themselves "government" or anything else, can have any rights or authority that everyone else doesn't possess.
You have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to defend your property. So does every other person on the planet, regardless of circumstances, "job", location, past, anything.
You do not have the right to point your finger at anyone else and say they can't carry a gun, smoke a leaf, grow some plants, keep a wolf in their living room, drive their own car without getting a license from you, live anywhere they can buy or rent a house, build a house on their own property, travel across property that doesn't belong to you, etc. Since you don't have those rights or that authority, you can't pretend to give someone else those powers on your behalf. And you most certainly can't pretend you give them those powers on MY behalf. I DO NOT consent!!
This is the problem with statism: the blatant inconsistency inherent to it. Consistency doesn't necessarily mean you are right- you can be consistently wrong- but inconsistency is a sure sign you are wrong.
.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Money Hate!
In various posts around the internet I witness a lot of hostility against money. Why?
Do people believe that in a world/society/civilization without money they can end up on top of the heap? They can be the new "rich"? Or that everyone will finally be perfectly "equal", economically?
So, I have some questions and observations for money haters:
How do you plan to buy food if the guy who has what you want to eat, doesn't need what you have to trade? Money won't go away because it is what makes trade convenient and easy.
People who don't understand money make it out to be this magical, mysterious Unknown (and generally their enemy), but it isn't. It is simply having something in your pocket that is almost universally accepted in trade for what you want. That's it.
If you can come up with a way to facilitate trade without "money", you will have invented money.
A "Resource Based Economy" ("RBE") can supplement money, but never totally replace it. In fact, I see the RBE as making a different type of money. When you assign some "trade value" to something you produce or take, you are making up "money". Unless I can just bake a cupcake and trade it for a new car...
There is no ethical difference between trading beans, goats, shoes, or gold for a cow, but there is a practical difference. I might not need a cow's worth of beans or shoes right now, but if you pay me with money, I can buy shoes, beans, and whatever else I need when I need them. I don't have to try to keep up with who owes me what, if I only needed 1/100 cow of beans this week, but traded you the whole cow anyway.
Money is an awesome innovation that won't go away just because you don't understand it and therefore fear or hate it.
It doesn't bother me if you want to live without money. Personally, I love to trade. I just don't understand the hostility toward people who choose to continue to use money, too. I suspect I would continue to be broke in either system, since I seem to not be producing what many others want- and money or not, that is the root of the problem. I think both ways could happily coexist alongside one another. But, please, don't hate on money- it just showcases your ignorance.
.
Do people believe that in a world/society/civilization without money they can end up on top of the heap? They can be the new "rich"? Or that everyone will finally be perfectly "equal", economically?
So, I have some questions and observations for money haters:
How do you plan to buy food if the guy who has what you want to eat, doesn't need what you have to trade? Money won't go away because it is what makes trade convenient and easy.
People who don't understand money make it out to be this magical, mysterious Unknown (and generally their enemy), but it isn't. It is simply having something in your pocket that is almost universally accepted in trade for what you want. That's it.
If you can come up with a way to facilitate trade without "money", you will have invented money.
A "Resource Based Economy" ("RBE") can supplement money, but never totally replace it. In fact, I see the RBE as making a different type of money. When you assign some "trade value" to something you produce or take, you are making up "money". Unless I can just bake a cupcake and trade it for a new car...
There is no ethical difference between trading beans, goats, shoes, or gold for a cow, but there is a practical difference. I might not need a cow's worth of beans or shoes right now, but if you pay me with money, I can buy shoes, beans, and whatever else I need when I need them. I don't have to try to keep up with who owes me what, if I only needed 1/100 cow of beans this week, but traded you the whole cow anyway.
Money is an awesome innovation that won't go away just because you don't understand it and therefore fear or hate it.
It doesn't bother me if you want to live without money. Personally, I love to trade. I just don't understand the hostility toward people who choose to continue to use money, too. I suspect I would continue to be broke in either system, since I seem to not be producing what many others want- and money or not, that is the root of the problem. I think both ways could happily coexist alongside one another. But, please, don't hate on money- it just showcases your ignorance.
.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Killing cops
Yes, I know that is a "provocative" headline.
I got tagged on a post on facebook, about how some libertarians are soiling the "movement" by not condemning the death of those Las Vegas cops shot while eating pizza.
It quickly devolved into people trying to put words in other people's mouths, so I summarized my thoughts:
But, then, a bizarre tangient developed where some were criticizing the self defense killing of any aggressor, and equating it with vigilantism (which I have always condemned in no uncertain terms), so I stated:
But, I will say again: there are no "good cops"; any encounter with a cop is potentially deadly. You never know what will trigger a cop to go off on you and result in your death. Lethal defense is often justified- even if not "wise". Currently it is mostly "criminals", who have nothing to lose, who recognize the reality of their situation, but as cops make more people feel they have nothing to lose, that will change. And no one will be to blame but the cops.
If you have the ability, check out the link to the Facebook post. I guarantee you will learn... something.
.
I got tagged on a post on facebook, about how some libertarians are soiling the "movement" by not condemning the death of those Las Vegas cops shot while eating pizza.
It quickly devolved into people trying to put words in other people's mouths, so I summarized my thoughts:
I would not ever walk up to a cop who was simply eating a pizza and shoot him in the head. I don't know whether it is his first day on the "job", and if so he might still be innocent of committing enforcement and theft. [added: but he would still be guilty of being a cop- there are many layers here.]
However, I will never be sad over the death of any cop- by any means. Bad guys kill bad guys all the time. It's one of the biggest risks of choosing to be a bad guy. It's not my responsibility to stop the bad guys from killing each other- I also don't grieve when cops kill armed robbers or kidnappers.
But, then, a bizarre tangient developed where some were criticizing the self defense killing of any aggressor, and equating it with vigilantism (which I have always condemned in no uncertain terms), so I stated:
Killing someone- anyone- who is currently aggressing/stealing is not wrong- you may quibble about "proportional response" as long as you aren't the target of the aggressor, but I won't second guess your split second decision after the fact.
I really don't know what else to say about it. You can put words in my mouth or twist what I have written to make me look evil- that's your choice.
Don't physically attack me or violate my property and you'll never have anything to worry about as far as I'm concerned.
But, I will say again: there are no "good cops"; any encounter with a cop is potentially deadly. You never know what will trigger a cop to go off on you and result in your death. Lethal defense is often justified- even if not "wise". Currently it is mostly "criminals", who have nothing to lose, who recognize the reality of their situation, but as cops make more people feel they have nothing to lose, that will change. And no one will be to blame but the cops.
If you have the ability, check out the link to the Facebook post. I guarantee you will learn... something.
.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Get out there and do something Anarchic
It has come back around again, just as happens every year at this time. Yep, it's time for those Random Acts of Anarchy: Anarchy Day.
Have fun.
.
Have fun.
.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Government shouldn’t ID for anything
Government shouldn’t ID for anything
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 16, 2014)
The arguments in favor of requiring a photo ID to vote- specifically, I assume, a photo ID issued from some governmental "authority"- center around the assertion that you don't want people voting who aren't entitled to vote.
However, if voting is to have any legitimacy, which is highly debatable, it must be available to anyone and everyone who would be affected by the results. An ID showing the citizenship status of the pictured individual has no bearing on whether a person will be affected by a "law" or the election-winning politician's actions.
You might justify a "your papers, please" law by pointing out in the current society a person is expected to produce government-issue photo ID to do business with a bank, buy alcoholic beverages, buy a gun, or drive a car. Some enforcers even seem to be under the impression ID is required before you are allowed to walk or merely take up space in the USA in the year 2014.
Sure, that is the case, but government shouldn't be allowed to require ID for any of those things.
If a bank wants photo ID before letting you open an account or cash a check, without any prodding by, or data sharing with, any branch of government, that's fine.
If an alcohol retailer or bar wants to see your ID before selling you what you wish to buy, all on their own without any "laws" forcing them to ask, that's their business.
If a gun store clerk insists on seeing your ID before selling you a gun, as long as it's the owner's idea alone, and he isn't being pressured to collect any data on his customers, and isn't informing anyone of who bought what, the burden is on him alone.
Until roads are privately owned there is absolutely no excuse for photo IDs being required for driving. This is a blatant violation of the fundamental human right to travel unmolested, and violates the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.
On the other hand, elections are strictly a government dog and pony show, so I suppose they can make up whatever restrictive rules they want to. Those rules might include picture IDs, poll taxes, or a loyalty test before being allowed to vote.
I'm not in favor of voting in any case. Liberty can never be subject to a vote. Numbers or majorities can't make wrong right. Nor can "common good", "social contracts", "safety", or overwhelming "need".
Do I want enemies of liberty electing their politicians who'll impose anti-liberty laws? No, but it's been happening that way since long before I was born. I don't expect photo ID requirements to change anything there.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 16, 2014)
The arguments in favor of requiring a photo ID to vote- specifically, I assume, a photo ID issued from some governmental "authority"- center around the assertion that you don't want people voting who aren't entitled to vote.
However, if voting is to have any legitimacy, which is highly debatable, it must be available to anyone and everyone who would be affected by the results. An ID showing the citizenship status of the pictured individual has no bearing on whether a person will be affected by a "law" or the election-winning politician's actions.
You might justify a "your papers, please" law by pointing out in the current society a person is expected to produce government-issue photo ID to do business with a bank, buy alcoholic beverages, buy a gun, or drive a car. Some enforcers even seem to be under the impression ID is required before you are allowed to walk or merely take up space in the USA in the year 2014.
Sure, that is the case, but government shouldn't be allowed to require ID for any of those things.
If a bank wants photo ID before letting you open an account or cash a check, without any prodding by, or data sharing with, any branch of government, that's fine.
If an alcohol retailer or bar wants to see your ID before selling you what you wish to buy, all on their own without any "laws" forcing them to ask, that's their business.
If a gun store clerk insists on seeing your ID before selling you a gun, as long as it's the owner's idea alone, and he isn't being pressured to collect any data on his customers, and isn't informing anyone of who bought what, the burden is on him alone.
Until roads are privately owned there is absolutely no excuse for photo IDs being required for driving. This is a blatant violation of the fundamental human right to travel unmolested, and violates the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.
On the other hand, elections are strictly a government dog and pony show, so I suppose they can make up whatever restrictive rules they want to. Those rules might include picture IDs, poll taxes, or a loyalty test before being allowed to vote.
I'm not in favor of voting in any case. Liberty can never be subject to a vote. Numbers or majorities can't make wrong right. Nor can "common good", "social contracts", "safety", or overwhelming "need".
Do I want enemies of liberty electing their politicians who'll impose anti-liberty laws? No, but it's been happening that way since long before I was born. I don't expect photo ID requirements to change anything there.
.
Anti-gun, pro-cop extremism
Recently, in a discussion about police and guns, the other person said
Well, there are certainly a lot of assumptions in that.
Police are not "needed"- not for anything. They can't "corral the evil" because they are the most blatant example of the evil among us. Yes, evil is "out there". It always has been and always will be. Police are not the solution.
The biggest result of allowing them to clutter society is to make all bad guys much safer. This is because they enforce so many "laws" against self-defense and defense of property. Of course, cops and freelance thugs have so much in common that to make it dangerous for "bad guys" to operate also makes it dangerous for cops. Too bad.
Then, to assume that "high school dropouts" are somehow unworthy to defend themselves... I don't even know what to say. School is indoctrination. It ruins the mind and is the opposite of education. Dropping out can be the wisest decision when faced with that truth. Cops who graduated high school are not "better" than people who dropped out and have kept honest jobs their whole life. (Cops get all their money from theft, you know.) It's not the person, it is the act. And having the ability to use deadly power is morally neutral. It can be good when used in defense or it can be evil when used for aggression- as it usually is by cops.
Having the ability to use deadly power- which isn't exclusive to guns, by the way- is not good or bad. The way you choose to use that deadly power (which everyone always possesses anyway, regardless) is all that matters.
It's why the anti-gun advocates, and the pro-cop extremists, are wrong. This time and every time.
.
"Police are needed to corral the evil. Because it is out there. High school dropouts wielding deadly power (keeping and bearing arms)... not a good thing."
Well, there are certainly a lot of assumptions in that.
Police are not "needed"- not for anything. They can't "corral the evil" because they are the most blatant example of the evil among us. Yes, evil is "out there". It always has been and always will be. Police are not the solution.
The biggest result of allowing them to clutter society is to make all bad guys much safer. This is because they enforce so many "laws" against self-defense and defense of property. Of course, cops and freelance thugs have so much in common that to make it dangerous for "bad guys" to operate also makes it dangerous for cops. Too bad.
Then, to assume that "high school dropouts" are somehow unworthy to defend themselves... I don't even know what to say. School is indoctrination. It ruins the mind and is the opposite of education. Dropping out can be the wisest decision when faced with that truth. Cops who graduated high school are not "better" than people who dropped out and have kept honest jobs their whole life. (Cops get all their money from theft, you know.) It's not the person, it is the act. And having the ability to use deadly power is morally neutral. It can be good when used in defense or it can be evil when used for aggression- as it usually is by cops.
Having the ability to use deadly power- which isn't exclusive to guns, by the way- is not good or bad. The way you choose to use that deadly power (which everyone always possesses anyway, regardless) is all that matters.
It's why the anti-gun advocates, and the pro-cop extremists, are wrong. This time and every time.
.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Stupid isn't necessarily wrong
Society and "authorities" have muddled right and wrong really badly.
It's wrong to initiate force, to violate the property of others, and to break your word (within reason).
Most of what religion and government- and those unduly influenced by either- claim to be wrong, isn't. Much of it is merely stupid.
What sorts of things might be considered stupid by lots of people under some circumstances? Drug abuse. Promiscuous sex. Early teen pregnancy. All those things that do not harm any third person but might possibly harm the person doing them.
People had gotten used to being punished by "authorities" for doing wrong, but "authorities" wanted even more control. Stupid- when it didn't come with immediate negative consequences- wasn't easy to enforce against people, so authorities convinced people that stupid was the same as wrong, then punished them.
And "they" are still doing it. Maybe I should add "letting them get away with it for so many centuries" to the list of stupid things people do.
.
It's wrong to initiate force, to violate the property of others, and to break your word (within reason).
Most of what religion and government- and those unduly influenced by either- claim to be wrong, isn't. Much of it is merely stupid.
What sorts of things might be considered stupid by lots of people under some circumstances? Drug abuse. Promiscuous sex. Early teen pregnancy. All those things that do not harm any third person but might possibly harm the person doing them.
People had gotten used to being punished by "authorities" for doing wrong, but "authorities" wanted even more control. Stupid- when it didn't come with immediate negative consequences- wasn't easy to enforce against people, so authorities convinced people that stupid was the same as wrong, then punished them.
And "they" are still doing it. Maybe I should add "letting them get away with it for so many centuries" to the list of stupid things people do.
.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
400,000
According to Blogger's count, I just went over 400,000 "all time views" for this blog.
I know that's not many compared to other, more important, blogs. But, it's still got that "round numbers" thing going for it, so I think it's kinda cool. I wonder if I'll ever make it to 1,000,000. LOL
.
I know that's not many compared to other, more important, blogs. But, it's still got that "round numbers" thing going for it, so I think it's kinda cool. I wonder if I'll ever make it to 1,000,000. LOL
.
Aggression isn't the only wrong
The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) is essential, but not sufficient.
Theft is a separate wrong from aggression- but of course it often comes hand in hand with aggression.
The ZAP deals with a violation of your person and theft deals with a violation of your property. There are more violations of your property than just theft- there is trespassing or damage to your property, or even just preventing you from using your property the way you want to use it.
I have seen a lot of people justify fraud by claiming "stupid people deserve what they get", but in my mind, if I don't want it done to me, I won't do it to others. I would feel bad about myself for defrauding others- it would damage me, so I won't do it. I do consider fraud a kind of theft, but one divorced from aggression. But, as I say, aggression isn't the only wrong.
The reason I believe it is right to defend your (non-bodily) property with force is that you "spent" some of your life in acquiring that property- you used up some of you. A person stealing your property is taking a part of your life- part you can't ever get back and could have used in other ways if you had known you were only going to have that part go to waste when it was stolen (or damaged etc.).
.
Theft is a separate wrong from aggression- but of course it often comes hand in hand with aggression.
The ZAP deals with a violation of your person and theft deals with a violation of your property. There are more violations of your property than just theft- there is trespassing or damage to your property, or even just preventing you from using your property the way you want to use it.
I have seen a lot of people justify fraud by claiming "stupid people deserve what they get", but in my mind, if I don't want it done to me, I won't do it to others. I would feel bad about myself for defrauding others- it would damage me, so I won't do it. I do consider fraud a kind of theft, but one divorced from aggression. But, as I say, aggression isn't the only wrong.
The reason I believe it is right to defend your (non-bodily) property with force is that you "spent" some of your life in acquiring that property- you used up some of you. A person stealing your property is taking a part of your life- part you can't ever get back and could have used in other ways if you had known you were only going to have that part go to waste when it was stolen (or damaged etc.).
.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Tax addicts vs. the rest of us
Who is doing more? The person who runs for city council or the person who lives by ZAP and minds his own business?
This comes to mind because of two particular things, a "life of service" and the obsession of the mainstream media with government.
I get a "highlights" email from the CNJ- which is usually composed of 3 items each from the CNJ and PNT (sometimes they overlap), and I was just looking at the most recent issue (when I wrote this), and all 5 items (one was repeated for both papers) were about government or its employees. That is disturbing.
It shows how important some people believe these parasites to be.
.
This comes to mind because of two particular things, a "life of service" and the obsession of the mainstream media with government.
I get a "highlights" email from the CNJ- which is usually composed of 3 items each from the CNJ and PNT (sometimes they overlap), and I was just looking at the most recent issue (when I wrote this), and all 5 items (one was repeated for both papers) were about government or its employees. That is disturbing.
It shows how important some people believe these parasites to be.
.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Just how free are you?
You are as free as you dare to be.
There will be consequences, of course, just as there are for anything. But in the next moment you can choose to do anything that is physically possible. "Laws" can't affect your freedom; only you (and the realities of the physical Universe) can.
Your liberty is similar. You can choose to do absolutely anything which doesn't violate the identical and equal rights of anyone else- and you have the right to do so.
Of course, enemies of freedom and liberty will be trying to catch and punish you. Bad guys have always been around, and they always will be. Currently, most of the worst of them call themselves government, but they are no different than the thugs of any other era. They don't want you to be free (even if they claim their "system" is "the freest on Earth" LOL), and they certainly don't want you exercising your Rightful Liberty.
Defy them if you want to.
.
There will be consequences, of course, just as there are for anything. But in the next moment you can choose to do anything that is physically possible. "Laws" can't affect your freedom; only you (and the realities of the physical Universe) can.
Your liberty is similar. You can choose to do absolutely anything which doesn't violate the identical and equal rights of anyone else- and you have the right to do so.
Of course, enemies of freedom and liberty will be trying to catch and punish you. Bad guys have always been around, and they always will be. Currently, most of the worst of them call themselves government, but they are no different than the thugs of any other era. They don't want you to be free (even if they claim their "system" is "the freest on Earth" LOL), and they certainly don't want you exercising your Rightful Liberty.
Defy them if you want to.
.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
A "tread on me" timeline
You were warned to not tread on me.
But collectivists have been treading on Rightful Liberty since the beginning. And, no, collectivism doesn't include "humanity", "civility", or "reason", but is the opposite of those. Democracy is mob rule, so yeah, I can see that.
I tried being nice and letting you collectivists know Time's Up.
But, you collectivists must have a death wish. Not my problem.
.
Take back (the meaning of) Liberty!
Where did this nonsense "'Liberty' means 'license'; 'permission'" come from?
Oh, right- from the world's biggest enemy of liberty: government. Particularly from the military's intentional misuse of the word.
It's the same as the enemies of liberty changing the peaceful, voluntary nature of "anarchy" and making it mean (in brainwashed minds, anyway) "death and destruction".
If "they" can fool you into not understanding what a word means, they won't have to worry about what you think- because they will have gotten inside your head to steer your thoughts. You'll not be able to think outside the definition they approved. Or, it will be much harder and you'll need to come up with other words where "old" ones were perfectly fine.
.
Oh, right- from the world's biggest enemy of liberty: government. Particularly from the military's intentional misuse of the word.
It's the same as the enemies of liberty changing the peaceful, voluntary nature of "anarchy" and making it mean (in brainwashed minds, anyway) "death and destruction".
If "they" can fool you into not understanding what a word means, they won't have to worry about what you think- because they will have gotten inside your head to steer your thoughts. You'll not be able to think outside the definition they approved. Or, it will be much harder and you'll need to come up with other words where "old" ones were perfectly fine.
.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Springtime fun on the Llano Estacado
Springtime fun on the Llano Estacado
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 9, 2014)
The recent "slightly stronger than average" winds wreaked havoc at my house. My only tree- a big ugly elm with which I had expressed displeasure only 24 hours earlier- decided to fall and tried to take my carport down with it. It was only partially successful.
Within minutes help arrived and the worst of the mess was being cleaned up. I had friends, family, and a stranger who just happened to drive by, all pitching in to get the situation under control. The street in front of my house wasn't even blocked for too long. I'm not sure how all those helpful folks had planned to spend their Sunday afternoon, but I'm pretty sure their plans didn't include helping me cut up a big tree in the midst of face scouring, eye-irritating, teeth-coating, ear-filling dirt and sand.
Contrary to the assumptions of those who dismiss the libertarian philosophy of Voluntaryism, I didn't have to threaten, force, or bribe a single person to help me. It was total anarchy- and I mean that in the proper sense of the word: no one giving orders or using coercion. Just regular people pitching in to help; applying their knowledge, skills, and common sense to a situation- and solving it.
It's not the first time I have been involved in a similar work party.
Even though I would prefer to have avoided the wind damage, I enjoy the almost festive atmosphere that spontaneously erupts when people come together to tackle a problem. It's a satisfying kind of fun.
Throughout it all I never saw any representative of local government. Neither to lend a hand nor to dole out fines or warnings for having my tree block a "public roadway". How would we ever survive without their guidance? Just fine, thank you.
"Sure, but this was only small-scale" you might say. Sorry to disappoint the skeptics, but this is how the world always goes 'round. And I'm glad of it. Countries don't do anything, individual people do. Whether it's helping a neighbor, or being tricked into conducting war against other individuals who are being manipulated by officials of a foreign "government".
I admit that I didn't seek permits, check the "laws", or ask permission of anyone in "authority" before doing what needed to be done. I didn't try to discover whether the EPA had declared the downed tree a critical habitat, or see if the local "authorities" insisted I follow procedure before commencing. Because: "Freedom and Liberty!"
I didn't even officially report the individuals I watched "steal" (or so they apparently believed) some of the cut up tree- I wish they had taken it all.
The recent "slightly stronger than average" winds wreaked havoc at my house. My only tree- a big ugly elm with which I had expressed displeasure only 24 hours earlier- decided to fall and tried to take my carport down with it. It was only partially successful.
Within minutes help arrived and the worst of the mess was being cleaned up. I had friends, family, and a stranger who just happened to drive by, all pitching in to get the situation under control. The street in front of my house wasn't even blocked for too long. I'm not sure how all those helpful folks had planned to spend their Sunday afternoon, but I'm pretty sure their plans didn't include helping me cut up a big tree in the midst of face scouring, eye-irritating, teeth-coating, ear-filling dirt and sand.
Contrary to the assumptions of those who dismiss the libertarian philosophy of Voluntaryism, I didn't have to threaten, force, or bribe a single person to help me. It was total anarchy- and I mean that in the proper sense of the word: no one giving orders or using coercion. Just regular people pitching in to help; applying their knowledge, skills, and common sense to a situation- and solving it.
It's not the first time I have been involved in a similar work party.
Even though I would prefer to have avoided the wind damage, I enjoy the almost festive atmosphere that spontaneously erupts when people come together to tackle a problem. It's a satisfying kind of fun.
Throughout it all I never saw any representative of local government. Neither to lend a hand nor to dole out fines or warnings for having my tree block a "public roadway". How would we ever survive without their guidance? Just fine, thank you.
"Sure, but this was only small-scale" you might say. Sorry to disappoint the skeptics, but this is how the world always goes 'round. And I'm glad of it. Countries don't do anything, individual people do. Whether it's helping a neighbor, or being tricked into conducting war against other individuals who are being manipulated by officials of a foreign "government".
I admit that I didn't seek permits, check the "laws", or ask permission of anyone in "authority" before doing what needed to be done. I didn't try to discover whether the EPA had declared the downed tree a critical habitat, or see if the local "authorities" insisted I follow procedure before commencing. Because: "Freedom and Liberty!"
I didn't even officially report the individuals I watched "steal" (or so they apparently believed) some of the cut up tree- I wish they had taken it all.
.
Pseudo-racism
It's not "racist" to hate things that are associated (by some people) with a particular "race"- because nothing is really race-dependant. It's culture dependent.
Things like baggy pants sagging below the butt.
Things like NASCAR.
Things like gun ownership.
Things like eating dogs.
Because anyone of any "race", not just the "race"which comes to your mind, could do those things.
You can still hate the behavior, if you want. You can think the culture that values or promotes the thing you think is stupid is ridiculous or "inferior". You can think it's the dumbest thing ever. But don't start pointing fingers at people, just because they are of a particular "race", who aren't doing those things. They may think it's as stupid as you do.
Or people of a "race" not normally associated with that behavior may love it, too.
And others probably think something you do is offensively stupid.
Fortunately, it's not about stupid things other (possibly stupid) people do; it's about initiating force or violating private property. Everything else is just a distraction.
.
Things like baggy pants sagging below the butt.
Things like NASCAR.
Things like gun ownership.
Things like eating dogs.
Because anyone of any "race", not just the "race"which comes to your mind, could do those things.
You can still hate the behavior, if you want. You can think the culture that values or promotes the thing you think is stupid is ridiculous or "inferior". You can think it's the dumbest thing ever. But don't start pointing fingers at people, just because they are of a particular "race", who aren't doing those things. They may think it's as stupid as you do.
Or people of a "race" not normally associated with that behavior may love it, too.
And others probably think something you do is offensively stupid.
Fortunately, it's not about stupid things other (possibly stupid) people do; it's about initiating force or violating private property. Everything else is just a distraction.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)