The Truth About ''Immigration''

From The Libertarian Enterprise, 9-21-2014

Basically, it's just some of my recent blogs, combined into one piece, submitted to TLE after Cathy Smith asked for submissions on the subject.

.

Understand it now?

If you believe a law is the answer, you clearly don't understand the problem.

.

Track down and drown... who?

(Let's imagine a world where voting mattered, and where the ZAP didn't...)

We should track down and drown Republican voters for always throwing the election to the Democrats! If they would just vote Libertarian like they should they wouldn't end up with Democrats in office! They need to just hold their nose for the liberty they don't want, and vote for Libertarians anyway, to keep the Democrat from winning. They always bleed votes away from the Libertarian candidate, and look where that gets us!

Well, if it were true for Republicans (and good enough for their harpy) it would be true for Libertarians.

.

"Innocent until proven guilty"?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is (was?) a concept designed to try to keep a "justice system" from becoming a corrupt rubber-stamping of the government's will.

It didn't work, but I understand why it was done.

That doesn't mean that when you know someone did something evil you have to wait until "the system" declares him guilty to know he is guilty. That's just silly.

But that's what copsuckers demand when one of their gods gets caught. Check out some of the badgefluffing comments. Looking for any justification for thuggishness, no matter how flimsy. It's really sickening.

I don't support double standards for aggressors. It is the same if you are a freelance thug. But, freelancers have a better chance of being held accountable than their "professional" counterparts, so it is especially important to not be distracted and let the "system" excuse or justify aggression by cops.

.

"For profit" prisons

I see a lot of people complaining about the vile concept of "prisons for profit". The implied "solution" they seem to be suggesting is to make governments run them all again "non-profitably".

That's a non-solution.

That's like saying since murder-for-hire is a bad thing, we should have "tax"-funded murders instead (oh, wait...). Or charity murders. The root problem isn't always how you pay for something; sometimes it's the thing you are paying for.

Prisons are the problem, not whether they are for profit or "tax" funded.

.

Updated: Officer Brent Aguilar of Clovis (NM) PD- newly registered Liberty Offender

Since this event is local to me, I feel I should help spread it around:
Passenger Asks Police Why They Were Stopped, So They Handcuffed Him Then Broke His Face

The Clovis Police department's Facebook page is doing damage control (in other words, lying and excusing and trying to deflect attention to this aggression by tax addict), and the copsuckers are helping- although at this time they are vastly outnumbered by the people who simply aren't buying the "justifications" anymore.

So, I think we have another addition to the Liberty Offender Registry: Congratulations Tax Parasite Officer Aguilar. I'll update this with your full name, you spineless pig, once I find out more information.

I'll also name your disgusting accomplices (Still believe in "good cops"? LOL)

I'll say it again: "resisting arrest", especially when it is an illegal "arrest- more accurately called a kidnapping- can NEVER be a "crime". You have an absolute right to defend yourself from kidnappers with any amount of force it takes to stop them- yes, even deadly force. Every single time a kidnapping of this sort is attempted I would love to see the kidnapper dead.

Watch below for updates and more links.

UPDATE: Seems it was Officer Brent Aguilar who was the brutal pig: link

"Corona was charged with concealing his identity and resisting arrest"

So, if I demand to know who someone is- without any cause whatsoever- and they refuse, it's a "crime". Good. So now let's see Brent Aguilar charged with the same crime since he and the police chief concealed his identity. Abolish the police.

UPDATE 2: You knew it was coming: Officer Brent Aguilar's victim has been kidnapped, charged with "felony aggravated assault and battery". Expose the crimes of a cop, expect retaliation. And, he didn't simply "accuse" Brent Aguilar- video evidence and eyewitness testimony backed him up. Even if he had said nothing, the evidence would have been there- in fact, he wasn't the one who recorded or released the video of the crime.

UPDATE 3: Apparently Aguilar has a history of brutal, thuggish behavior. How many other Clovis cops simply haven't yet been exposed for the same thing? All of them?

.

An impossible "free society"?

The next time you hear some "pragmatic" person tell you there will never- CAN never be a "free society", just remember how few years it took to adopt a collectivist, socialist system in America.

A really bizarre, unnatural and broken "system" which can't work- never has worked any time it has been tried, and never will work unless humans evolve into some sort of drone organism, has been "successfully" imposed on people who still believe they are the "anti-socialists". And even though they suffer the failures on a daily basis, they still refuse to see what has happened.

But we're the crazy ones for suggesting a free society is possible, and working to make it happen.

So, yes, a free society is possible, no matter how unlikely it may seem today. And it can happen a lot faster than you imagine if more people simply start implementing it in their own lives instead of worrying that it will never be and seeking reasons why.

.

Self control highest responsibility

Self control highest responsibility

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 15, 2014.)

Liberty, responsibility, and happiness are intimately entwined.

Liberty is the freedom to do absolutely anything which doesn't violate anyone else's identical and equal liberty. It really is that simple; it's how responsible people behave.

Living by liberty can lead to happiness if you're not careful.

Some disturbed people aren't content with living their own liberty because it means staying out of the way of others. These people seem driven to meddle and prevent others from living a life of full liberty.

Often they take issue with the choices others make; calling them "libertines" or pointing out that some people will always be irresponsible. Until a person's choices violate the liberty of someone else, it's no one's business, and not within anyone's authority to interfere. You have no right to violate the liberty of others simply because some people might act irresponsibly or make choices which offend a "majority".

Your highest responsibility is to control yourself, not to enforce your ideas of responsibility on others- which seems to be very difficult for a lot of people in today's meddlesome society.

Every human interaction should be strictly voluntary. When someone breaks that indispensable rule of civilization and forces themselves or their way upon you, self defense becomes a legitimate option- even if the other person feels they were right in their actions toward you. They may point to "laws" they claim allow them to impose on you, or say they are doing it for your own good, or even worse, "for the children" or "for the good of society". Those excuses are always lies.

Some people get an empty substitute for happiness- and may even believe it's the real deal- from violating people. Don't be those people. You can't truly be happy while violating others and restricting their happiness.

If you honestly worry about someone else's choices, you have every right to warn them and try to convince them to see things your way. They may listen and change course, of their own free will, or they may keep doing what they are doing. It is then your responsibility to walk away. Later, you may choose to help them if your warnings were not heeded and their choice leads to problems, but you're not obligated to save them. And forcing yourself on others, even if motivated by genuine love and concern, is wrong.

Your responsibility is to do only those things you have a right to do. Respecting liberty means you must accept the right of everyone to make their own mistakes and either learn from them, or not, without overstepping your bounds. I know you can do it!

.

More gun stuff from Julie

I've been busy and distracted, and I neglected to share a few things from the Julie on Politics blog.

• First is this bit about some gun rights-respecting sheriffs. Well, sort of.

As I noted in an email to Julie:

Any sheriff who claims to defend the Second Amendment- but still enforces the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of '68 (and any other anti-gun edict)- is a liar. They are playing politics to appeal to a certain segment of the voters rather than being a real defender of gun rights. I realize they can't keep the "tax"-funded "job" without compromising, but that just means an honest person wouldn't accept the "job" in the first place.

The Second Amendment- if I could go back in time and write it from scratch- would be a lot simpler. It would state "Anyone who tries to take your guns is fair game". Because that is the moral reality, if not the "law".

Of course, a Second Amendment isn't necessary unless you make the stupid mistake of allowing a State to exist.

• Then, she has an update on Shaneen Allen. I wrote about her- and the abuse she is suffering- before. It makes me sick. Julie writes: "Women like Shaneen Allen should have the right to protect themselves." 

Well, they do. But evil thugs- from the cop who kidnapped her, to the parasites in the "justice system" who are continuing the molestation of Ms. Allen- are very enthusiastic to violate that right. I would like to see my re-writing of the Second Amendment mentioned above applied liberally in every case like this. I will never grieve any cop or politician who dies in the act of committing a gun theft. Never.

• Then, she writes about another tragedy, and a bittersweet turn it has taken: Children Of Shooting Instructor Write Letter To 9 Year Old Who Accidentally Killed Him.   

I haven't said anything about this accident, because there just isn't much to say. Accidents happen, and it is always tempting to start placing blame. We all do things that could have- or should have- killed us. If nothing happened we may not even be aware of it. 

I'm glad the dead man's kids are reaching out to the girl. I hope their forgiveness (if it was even needed) brings her comfort. And, I hope, just like falling off a bike, she will try shooting again.

.

Paralyzed by fiction

When I watch certain movies and TV programs I find myself feeling the world is much more scary and violent than it has proven to be in my experience of real life. And then I think of all the people who use these scary things as justification for not acting on making their own lives more liberated.

That makes me wonder if the people who always bring up the "evil warlord" and "rampaging gangs flowing across the countryside" objections to a voluntary society watch too much violent fiction. Or, at least, believe the fiction too strongly.

I'm not saying you shouldn't watch fictional programs, but remember they are fiction!

You can spend your time worrying about magical wizards, dragons, zombies, and spacetime portals swallowing you up if that's what you choose to do, but don't allow those concerns to paralyze you. That would be sad. The same goes for all sorts of unlikely justifications for The State.

And, yes, I realize really nasty powerful (freelance) bad guys, evil warlords, and rampaging gangs are more probable than magical wizards and dragons, but just barely. And if you live where those things are probable (generally due to too much governing going on in the first place), you should really consider moving.

.

"Pink slime"- no, not that kind...

When you hear of "pink slime", do you think of this?:

Next time, think of this, instead:

Found here

Notice the "Pink market". Those things which are immoral/unethical, but "legal" anyway.

Now, consider the "Red market"- immoral/unethical and "illegal"- for a minute.

A murderer might kill a kid who would grow up to be the next Chairman Mao, and therefore save millions of innocent future lives.

A thief might steal a family's TV thereby freeing up a kid's mind to discover reading or experiencing life first-hand.

A rapist might discover a lump in his victim's breast, and might make her aware of it with a crude comment, saving her life in the process.

A slave owner might have prevented a person from starving to death by enslaving him.

You still don't argue that the above people are good or necessary. Any "benefit" to their "red market" activities would be better done without violating people or property. The bad guys are still bad, even if they accidentally do something good.

In the same way, looking at the "pink market" examples...

War might save a culture and particular individuals by killing other individuals.

Taxation might fund a family's food and housing- either through welfare or a government job (but I repeat myself).

State torture might get information that saves some lives- either innocent lives or government employees' lives.

Imprisonment might remove some violent and thieving people from society.

Compulsory education might force some kids to learn, and might give some a damaged sort of socialization.

I would also add that a cop might stop a bad guy from victimizing an innocent person, and an FBI profiler might stop a serial murderer.

But to argue that the above activities (and the people who commit them) are good or necessary ignores the fact that they are all funded through theft (which is enforced with the threat of death), and the harm they do to society (by harming individuals) is greater than any benefit. And, any "system" that doesn't allow you to opt out is aggressive by nature, rather than peaceful and voluntary.

Sometimes I think I can be a miserable b**tard. Such as when I express my hatred of government schools in the presence of someone who worships that pink market monstrosity. I don't bring it up on my own, because I don't like to dwell on the negative. But when I am exposed to praise and support of such a vile institution, over and over, without end, I am going to speak up, and the Believers aren't going to like it.

It's hard since most of my relatives work in government schools in one capacity or another, leading the rest to praise those child abuse institutions. But, they know if they keep pushing, I'm going to speak up.

.

Lowering property values

What if you buy a house in a "nice neighborhood", and then a few months later someone buys the house next door and paints it purple with yellow polka dots and has "Ugly People Mud Wrestling" in their front yard every night?

You might complain that they have lowered your property values.

If that can make the local "tax" thieves demand a lower yearly ransom you should be grateful, as long as you aren't trying to sell your house. Put up a tall fence, or enjoy making fun of the show.

But, even if you are trying to sell, why assume that this development would automatically be seen the same way by every potential buyer? Because it won't. Maybe someone would like to buy your house to put a concession stand in the front yard, and bleachers, and charge admission so people can point and laugh.

But, again, even if it does reduce the resale value, have you been "taken from"? Has someone taken value away from you in a way that makes them owe restitution?

I don't believe so.

Lots of things can reduce the value of your property.

If a visitor to your home damages your TV so that it no longer gets one particular channel, they have reduced the value of your TV. They owe restitution.

If the owner of your favorite TV network decides to close up shop (or cancel Firefly!), he has also reduced the value of your TV to you. But, as upsetting as his actions may be, he doesn't owe you restitution. Your TV would still be as valuable to someone whose tastes and preferences differed from yours.

Just like your house next to the Ugly Naked Muddy Clown House.

.

Arrogance or confidence?

I really don't want to be a nominee for "The B.H. Obama Award for Outstanding Arrogance". But, a couple of times in my life I have been scolded for arrogance by statists.

Plus, I do think I suffer from "Resting Smug Face" (is that better than "RBF"?).

I think what they mistake for arrogance is actually confidence based upon years of looking at the evidence and reality.

I didn't come to these conclusions lightly- or independently. Sometimes it was even painful, and I had to be dragged kicking and screaming. But, even the tough questions don't disprove the idea that liberty is better than slavery.

I'll always look for counter evidence. I'm suspecting it will never be found.

.

Cutting to the heart

“If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one. ” ~ Robert LeFevre

I honestly believe that realization cuts to the very heart of the matter. It demolishes every single justification for The State in one fell swoop.

The reality is that people are good, evil, and ambivalent. Each of us has probably been all three at different times. But, give a person political power and the evil will be strengthened and encouraged. Positively selected for.

If you could guarantee a method of making sure only good people were given political power, and would remain good while having it, so they could "govern" the evil and ambivalent people in society... I still wouldn't need government. But, I'd be content to let you engage in your silly little game- since being good would mean you'd leave me completely alone unless I initiated force or theft.

But since evil people are drawn to the power politics gives them, and the few good people who accidentally gain political power are quickly corrupted by it, your system fails every single time. And evil people with political power are much, much worse than evil people who are forced to do evil without the veil of legitimacy government seems to convey.

I don't dare support government of any kind, for any reason. It's just too dangerous to risk.

.

"Government of the gaps"

You have probably heard of "The God of the gaps", where the unexplained is attributed to God/gods, but new discoveries shrink the unexplained, leaving less and less room for the supernatural to be the best explanation for observed phenomena.

Well, "The Government of the gaps" is very similar.

It's where people say "how would the mail get delivered without government running a postal service?"... until FedEx and UPS and email show exactly how.

Or any other thing "only government can do", until someone else does it.

It's why I am amused every time someone asks "But who would build the roads?" They are appealing to "The Government of the gaps"- and it makes them look rather dumb.

.

Happiness possible in police state

Happiness possible in police state

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 8, 2014.)

Perfect happiness. It may not be possible as a permanent condition in life, but you can still experience moments of perfect happiness if you know where, and how, to look.

Even while people calling themselves "government" work to steal happiness right out of your pocket and regulate or criminalize the bits they can't take.

If you can't find some happiness in a police state, you probably wouldn't be happy in a free society, either. There will always be something to complain about, and there will always be thieves and bullies trying to bring you down to their level. Don't let them.

Happiness and freedom mean doing exactly what you want to be doing right now- even if it doesn't appear wonderful to people looking in from the outside. As long as you are respecting the rights of everyone else to do the same, it's no one's business what you do.

So, what little moments of perfect happiness do I find?

A few nights ago I sat out under the stars. The temperature was perfect and no mosquitoes were bothering me. As I sat there looking up I saw a meteor flash across the sky. I listened to cattle in the distance, and heard the hooting of an owl a time or two. There was nothing I would have preferred to be doing right then.

Earlier in the day I had felt joy while listening to a woman talking about one of her life's passions- and even more joy because what she loved to do was entirely voluntary and violated no one in any way.

My daughter often brings me these moments, as well.

Almost every day I'll suddenly think "Right this moment, I am really happy!"

I want others to feel this same contentment and freedom, doing things which make them happy while not violating others or their property. I am content to leave you alone to pursue your own happiness, and I want others to not meddle in your life, as well.

Sometimes, I even feel happiness when exposed to the liberty-killing coercion of government. I recently felt amusement, exhilaration, and joy watching a man rip up a citation from some wildlife officers, put it in a trash can, turn his back, and walk away as they gaped after him. Little acts of self-ownership such as this are very inspiring. It gives me hope there is still a little of the American spirit left in the people of the USA; the spirit which doesn't automatically bow down to "authorities" and reflexively comply with their demands. Yes, life is good.

.

"Everybody got a gris-gris."

Penn Jillette said it: "Everybody got a gris-gris."

Everyone else's "gris-gris" are easy to see: gods, governments, "good cops", whatever. No basis in rationality whatsoever, but they are "believed in" regardless. Some may even be helpful for some individuals to hang onto- others are neutral and some are decidedly harmful.

Some of my own are easy for me to see. I even have a medicine bag, for crying out loud- a physical "gris-gris". Although I don't believe it has any "power"- I see it as a scrap book in buckskin more than anything else. But it is what it is.

I also don't automatically discount sightings of Sasquatch as hoaxes or hallucinations or mis-identifications, and the same goes for UFOs. I could be wrong.

However, I also accept that everything I believe may be nothing but a gris-gris. So I try to dig into them to see whether they are or not. Maybe liberty really isn't good for humans. Maybe The State is necessary, and isn't always evil*. Maybe guns aren't useful tools, and unless you are a cop or in the military they just endanger innocent lives.

And maybe "borders" are necessary, even if Massively Big, Omnipresent Government, "taxation", and socialism are essential to maintaining and "defending" them.

If I'm wrong, I want to know.

But, I also don't constantly dwell on whether each thing I believe is a gris-gris. If new information crops up, I try to honestly evaluate it. I have changed my mind about many things over the years, when presented with a good enough argument. So far, each time I do, though,I move a little more toward liberty and eliminate more exceptions where government can hide. It has been a one-way process, going on my whole life. I used to hold some beliefs I ditched when exposed to new, more, or better information- or experience. It's why I used to be a minarchist, but am now an anarchist. I recognized some gris-gris I was holding to, and I tossed them aside. I can do without that extra weight. I'll bet you can, too.

-

*Maybe a troll site- it's so absurd I am just not sure.

.

Martial Law

The recent events in Ferguson, Missouri- government created and government escalated events- almost resulted in martial law being declared, according to some reports.

I see martial law as a declaration of war being made by those who imagine themselves to be "government" against the people of the area. It doesn't matter what excuse is used to justify the imposition of martial law since it affects the innocent a lot more than it affects the guilty. When government employees declare they can kill people for doing things they have every right to do, it sure looks like war.

But there's another side to that.

Once someone declares war on you, you should assume that anyone associated with "that side" intends you harm, and- as a credible threat- they can be dealt with accordingly.

So, a declaration of martial law means it's "open season" on enforcers, politicians, and other government employees in the affected area (or who claim jurisdiction over that area, no matter where they may cower)- ALL government employees in the area who don't immediately quit their "job" and publicly condemn The State unconditionally are choosing their side and making themselves fair game.

I'd hate to be them.

.

Coming up with any excuse for The State

A while back I saw a really silly, desperate grasp at justification for government:

"what do you think life will be like when anarchy rules and your fat, ugly next door neighbor decides to mate with his pet sheep in the front yard whilst playing hip hop through gigantic, window rattling speakers?"

And, what do you do if this happens now, under the US police state?

I certainly wouldn't call the cops on my strange neighbor. The cops might shoot him, and I don't think his behavior should be a capital offense. And, seeing how often it happens, I don't think it's worth the risk of being shot, myself, when the testosterone crazed cowards show up. And I value my daughter too much to invite cops into her presence.

As they say, "good fences make good neighbors", and if you live near enough to see other people on their own property from your house, you probably ought to invest in a fence if you worry about what you'll see.

"What you'll hear" is a more difficult matter, but again, distance is the cure for that. Or, just sit outside and enjoy it. Or, blast your own antidote on your own property and drown out what you don't want to hear. Plus, aren't there now computers which can neutralize sound? In a free market, those would probably get better, cheaper, and more common- just for things like the neighbor and his giant speakers.

It really bewilders me that people actually worry about things like this happening, and can't think of any way to "protect" themselves from it that don't involve aggression, theft, or that huge, gluttonous Combo Meal of the two: The State.

.

Borderists expose their confusion

If you've seen an online argument over "immigration" I'm sure you've seen this. Some smug "conservative" collectivist will think he is whipping out his "Gotcha!" and waving it around:

"If you don't mind illegal immigrants then you won't mind if I move into your house. What's your address?"

Sigh. It's as embarrassing as when Creationists try to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to support their position.

In their socialistic little minds, they (or The State) "own" all the land called "America" (or "The USA" as the case may be) just like I own my house. Only, apparently, since they are socialistic collectivists, they think the State's claim on my house comes first, too. So, since they don't recognize private property rights, I guess it would seem reasonable to them to move into my house.

Since I do recognize private property rights, I know I have no right to move into their house, nor to assert a collective claim on the whole land, including their property.

I sympathize with some of the anti-migrant feelings. But to use that argument just shows you're an idiot- and a collectivist one at that.

.