Government stops real solutions

Government stops real solutions

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 19, 2014.)

It is said "No man is an island". This seems undeniable, yet libertarians are frequently accused of believing individuals are islands. As if we see humans as isolated and alone, unable to join with others to fix problems which are beyond one person's ability, unless they form that most persistent of Utopian ideas: a government.

People coming together in a completely voluntary and consensual manner, to accomplish something they are in unanimous agreement on, is a wonderful thing to be a part of.

What we do oppose is anyone being forced to join projects they would rather not, and being forced to pay for things they either don't want, or believe they are getting a bad deal on.

Government is currently the main barrier preventing individuals from working together and finding voluntary solutions which don't violate any individuals. Its employees say they must approve, license, regulate, or coordinate every big project, and most small ones as well. Which means, in essence, "no private solutions allowed". Everything must be shoved through the meat grinder of bureaucracy and coercion before being implemented- which destroys any chance of a rational solution being put into action.

Let's say a group of individuals- perhaps ranchers, dairy owners, farmers, and any other concerned people- came together to take on some hypothetical area's ongoing water problems.

The only limitations are that no one may violate the private property of another- which means, in part, no one can be forced to pay for it against their will through taxation- and no force can be used against those who opt out of the plan. It doesn't mean those who opt out can still get the full benefits of any solution without chipping in, though.

Would I trust those individuals to find the best chance at a real, lasting solution for this crisis? If government were not allowed to interfere in any way whatsoever- yes, I would.

Could a solution actually be found? I don't know for certain.

What I do know with certainty is that government solutions to this problem have never worked. They can't. Most are analogous to having the water shut off to your house, so you decide to use the water in your water heater and toilet tanks while pretending it's a permanent solution. And buying, with your neighbor's bank account, a solid gold dipper to serve it with.

Some problems have no real solution, no matter how you treat others. But, if you commit to respecting the rights and property of all concerned, at least you haven't added to the pain. or done the wrong thing for supposedly noble reasons.

It's the mature and ethical way to approach problems.

.

The foundation of civilization

Guess what, every bad guy you have ever met or heard of has some "libertarian" leanings or qualities. Every single one. And that doesn't negate libertarianism in any way.

Everyone has some libertarian positions.

Society would collapse if that weren't true. No one would be able to work together to accomplish anything, because the first disagreement would bring out the baseball bats, brass knuckles, and guns to force everyone else to do it "my way". Any price that was "too high" would result in theft- every time- unless the seller held the buyer at gun point as long as he was shopping.

Every civilized action is libertarian by nature.

Statism is only supportable as a minority, limited condition practiced in very limited ways, and not by too many people too much of the time in too many situations. It turns on itself otherwise.

It's utterly bizarre that some people get this truth exactly backwards.

.

Hooked on being abused

It seems like so many people support the State because they enjoy doing things they believe they can only do through The State.

I'm not just talking about cops and military who want that "job" so they can use aggression without consequence- I'm talking about people with otherwise harmless hobbies and interests, who fall into a government-funded niche they don't want to give up.

The researcher who believes her job can only be supported by "tax" money.

The librarian who believes only government can fund libraries.

The "ham radio" enthusiast who loves getting the permits that validate and authorize his hobby.

The machine gun owner who chills at the thought that anyone else might have a gun like his without having to jump through the hoops he is proud to have gotten entangled in.

I am odd in that if government thugs have violated me in some way, I am not in favor of everyone else being violated in the same way, and if I love a job or hobby, I invariably want to see it freed of State control, so that it can thrive.

Why is that so hard?

.

Rigged games

I recently had some more self-awareness sneak up on me.

I realized I have a very low tolerance for rigged games. No only the political game, but in every area of life.

Once I figure out it's rigged I stop playing. I won't do what's expected. I may ignore the game altogether, or if prevented from doing that, I may refuse to abide by the rules invented by the players, and imposed on me, the one who doesn't want to play at all.

And, those who rigged the game, or insist everyone keep playing anyway, don't like it when their plot fails to trap someone. Good. Upsetting them seems a low price to pay for more liberty.

.

The predictability of statism

Statists of all sorts get very upset by the truth and reality. Those who support cops are probably the worst.

They don't wanna hear it. They'll deny. They'll dream up objections, look for exceptions. They'll look for the hard cases that nothing can fix.

As if any of that props up their superstition.

Then, when all this doesn't convince you to embrace their ways, they'll call you names, say you have to be pragmatic, tell you to "move to Somalia", or threaten aggression.

Because, since they can't handle the truth, that's all they've got on their side.

It's predictable, and sad, really.

.

The Religion of Aggression

Statism is the real "religion of violence"- and not just violence, but aggression. It's what the believers always fall back on when their tactics don't make you yield to their wishes.

ISIS is aggressive mostly because it is following the path of being a State. Without trying to be a State the aggression would be much less dangerous, and easier to counter.

Israel is aggressive because it is a State.

The US is aggressive because it is a State.

All States are aggressive by the very nature of being States.

Yes, there are non-State aggressors out there. But the worst ones often try to gain the appearance of legitimacy by joining (or becoming) a State of some kind.

But States are only dangerous because of their Believers.

.

Cops- the price of legitimacy

I've said it before, but it bears repeating:

IF police are to have any legitimacy whatsoever, and that's a mighty big "if", they must be reminded that they have no "authority" that you or I don't have.

They were supposed to be nothing more than the butler who does what you or I didn't feel like doing right now. Just like you have the authority to haul your own trash to the dump, but you hire someone else to do it because you don't want to be bothered. And if trash collectors start acting like they can order you around, use aggression against you if you decide you can no longer afford or risk their "services", they'll become uppity, dangerous goons just like cops have become, and I'll fire them, too. If I am forced to keep paying them, I am being robbed.

That's right- cops are lowly servants, not masters.

They say "jump"; we ask "Why?" If they can't give a reasonable answer, we walk away after firing them.

We say "jump"; they ask nothing until after they jump. Their immediate, grovelling obedience comes as a price of the "job". If they don't like it, they can go get an honest job.

That's the price of legitimacy. If they refuse to pay it they can continue to be nothing more than the thieving, aggressive bad guys more and more people are recognizing them to be.

I have no "need" for servants who have become uppity and abusive and murderous. I take back responsibility for my own life (as if I ever handed it over to such pathetic people).

.

Keep good rules; chuck the rest

Keep good rules; chuck the rest

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 12, 2014.)

Contrary to what many seem to believe, libertarians are not against rules. In fact, they are defined by adherence to one rule in particular: the Zero Aggression Principle. It simply states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." This basically means "Don't start violence by throwing the first punch, or by sending someone else to throw the first punch."

Live by that rule and you are a libertarian whether you know it or not; don't live by it and you aren't libertarian no matter what you say.

Natural Law aligns flawlessly with the Zero Aggression Principle, including the necessity of respecting the property rights of others.

Other rules are helpful for self preservation.

Following the dosage rules for medication is smart. Rules for proper food preparation or keeping your water safe to drink are necessary. Following rules for safe gun handling helps you survive. Some people don't obey good rules and suffer the consequences.

Still other rules have evolved concerning customary behavior. Pausing at intersections and driving on the right side of the road (where this is the custom) are examples of this. These would be smart things to do regardless of laws dictating them, simply because everyone has come to expect this, and refusing to cooperate will needlessly endanger your life and the lives of innocent people. Of course, these rules vary from place to place, so don't fall into the trap of believing they are universal like Natural Law. Even when these rules find their way into laws, some people will refuse to follow these rules and will cause harm.

The legitimate rules, which are sometimes reflected in invented, statutory law, are the ones which would survive and be followed by most people without being enforced, or even written down. If you don't follow them, you'll probably suffer.

Most libertarians are fine with these rules, and are simply against arbitrary, unnecessary, or harmful rules.

Bad rules would soon die out without armed enforcement keeping them propped up. Rules like coming to a complete stop at stop signs, when no one really believes it is essential to driving safely; or having a license plate or a drivers license. Or arbitrary speed limits. Speed limits are silly, since even the law tosses them aside on a whim; thus "driving too fast for conditions", even when well below the "speed limit".

Other arbitrary, unnecessary or harmful rules would include those regulating the owning and carrying of weapons, rather than the aggressive use of those weapons. Or rules imposing taxation. Or compulsory school attendance.

Keep the good rules; scrap the rest.

.

Comments on The Crimes of Officer Brent Aguilar- UPDATED

I rarely do this, but you really should go back and read the comments posted on The Crimes of Clovis' Officer Brent Aguilar, and the pass given by copsuckers.

It shows just how hard statists will try to justify their superstitious beliefs. I'll admit, the guy is good at it.

Funny, though, how many things I bring up that he conveniently ignores- skipping right over that to try another direction.

And, am I mistaken, or did the sorry little butt nugget just threaten me?

I think you'll enjoy reading through the comments, and keep checking back. He may not be done.

-

UPDATED- He's still at it and digging himself even deeper, and getting more desperate.

.

Can't fight reason? Just nuke 'em.

I just finished reading an excellent book, The Market for Liberty, which came highly recommended by one of the commenters here- I'll probably have more to say about it soon.

But, in reading how the authors say a free society would spread, because the States around the world couldn't compete with it, makes me wonder something inconvenient which the authors seem to have ignored.

Would governments join together in an attempt to attack and destroy a free society which was embarrassing them and attracting "their people" and businesses? Rather than trying to compete, and locking down their "borders" and outlawing emigration, would they simply nuke the free area to "solve" the problem?

I'm afraid I believe they just might do it, since there is no other way they could compete.

That doesn't mean they would necessarily be successful, since a free society would probably be filled to the brim with people who were obsessive about defense and weaponry- which no one would be able to criminalize.

And, in such a scenario, "winning" doesn't mean the aggressors were right and that statism is moral or ethical. It just means they were stronger or lucky. Just like any murderer who manages to kill his victim.

But, it's something I have seen in my own life: when statists can't win with reason, they resort quickly to force, which they always believe they have a right to initiate against anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's why they, while ridiculous, are dangerous and need to be watched.

.

Statists telling me what I want...

From where comes the assumption that if someone harms me, I want the guilty person kidnapped and placed in a cage- that I must finance whether I can afford it or not?

Not only am I expected to want to pay for the cage, the guards, my violator's food and electricity, the upkeep of the cage, his medical bills, and all the bureaucracy to keep him caged "legally", but I am also supposed to want to pay for the cops who "caught" him.

Screw that!

I want justice, not punishment. And justice doesn't come from The State.

Punishing others benefits me in no way, even when you punish the real guilty person, but actually harms me when the punishment is financed by me and others against our will. Heaping violation on top of violation to punish some violators is not a healthy "system".

Yet, I am told all the time that "no victim wants their violator to 'go free'".

Once again, I am "no one".

.

Statism- the self-contradictory superstition

Statism is nothing but a web of contradictory beliefs. It's not internally consistent in any way. You can see an illustration of that anytime you witness a debate between a statist and a non-statist.

People are flawed, so they must be controlled by people. 

"Laws" are good and necessary, even though I disagree with some of them. 

Crime exists, so The State is necessary to stop crime- even though The State has been around for thousands of years and crime still exists.

It's not wrong (theft/"taxation", kidnapping/"arrest") if government does it. 

And on and on it goes.

Sometimes the stupid hurts.

But, I try very hard to have patience with statists. Because I care and I believe their lives will be better if they stop being so stupidly inconsistent and self-contradictory. Some days, though, I think "Are you even listening to yourself?!?"

Without those inherent contradictions, statism simply ceases to be. It evaporates to be replaced by something else. It is replaced by anarchism, voluntaryism, or whatever you wish to call it. It's like a breath of fresh air to those who finally allow themselves to breathe.

.

Understanding; not accepting

I sometimes understand those who initiate force- or want to- while recognizing they have no right to do so.

I am only human and have had the same perverse desires crop up myself.

I admit I was wrong when I wanted to initiate force- why is it so hard for some people to accept the same?

.

Voluntary segregation

I wonder....

Would it be "better" (however you might define that term) if humans segregated themselves by "intelligence"?

Maybe they already do, to some extent, but I'm thinking of people migrating, voluntarily, to asteroids or space colonies that are set up to make people of a particular IQ range "happy".

I do think there are distractions and hobbies and pastimes and careers that people of certain levels of intelligence are more likely to participate in and enjoy, and others they tend to avoid.

At first the idea sounds attractive, especially when I'm aggravated at certain people.

Then I wonder if it would be boring to never be around people substantially dumber or smarter than yourself. Would people seem more irritating without more variety?

Just another reason I am skeptical of Utopia.

.

Five things to know about liberty

Five things to know about liberty

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 5, 2014.)

I see regular articles on the topic of "Five things to know about..." a person, object, or job which some readers might be curious about. Apparently nothing is as poorly understood as liberty- with is strange to admit in a country which was supposedly founded to give regular people the best shot at achieving liberty. Perhaps it is time for a "Five things to know about liberty".

Defending rights:
Just because you admit someone has a right to do something, it doesn't necessarily mean you approve of what they do or wish to join them. It simply means you realize when they aren't violating any other person or private property you have no right to prevent them from doing what they are doing, and therefore can't pass this authority you don't possess to anyone on your behalf. You have a right to drink protein shakes, and I'll defend your right to do so, but I'll not be joining you.

Defending scoundrels:
Defending the rights of everyone doesn't mean you agree with or like them. Unless you can stand up for the rights of your worst enemy, you are hypocritical expecting others to defend your rights. H. L. Mencken put it well: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Consistency counts:
Being consistent means you will upset some people who believe you should make exceptions for their favorite rights violations and violators. This is the biggest stumbling block for most people. They easily see why the other guy is wrong, but when they do the exact same thing for "their side" they see nothing wrong with it. Of course, being consistent doesn't mean you are right- a person can be consistently wrong- but being inconsistent is an obvious clue something is wrong with your thinking or behavior.

Anything can be better:
Supporting liberty and opposing those who violate it doesn't mean you "hate America" or should "move to Somalia". It means you know things can always be better than they are, while appreciating the good you already have. Or still have, as the case may be.

No forcing it:
If someone doesn't hunger for liberty and doesn't want to understand it, nothing you or I can say will change that. In such a case you simply need to live liberty and leave them on their own- and hope they never force you to defend yourself from them. Maybe your example will create curiosity. If not, you'll still have a better life.

.

An imaginary distinction

I just don't get the distinction.

If a guy is trying to rob you, using potentially deadly force, is it wrong to kill him in self defense if you know he's a pastor?

What if he's a cop?

What does his job matter?

Here's a hint: it doesn't.

Violators deserve to die at the hands of their intended victims at the scene of the attack. That doesn't mean the victim is "required" to kill the attacker, but only an evil person would fault him for doing so.

.

Double standards are not worth the cost

If you "hog tie" government employees (particularly cops) by demanding they obey the rules everyone else is expected to obey, the statist complaint is that they can't get anything done.

Too bad.

If you "must" steal or initiate force to do your job, I don't want your "help". I want you to go away- and die if you won't go away voluntarily. Nothing you could ever do in your "official capacity" is worth tolerating your violations. I'm not afraid of those things you want me to ask for your "protection" from. I need nothing from you but to be left to live in Rightful Liberty.

You can't seem to do that- so you declare me your enemy for not going along with your raping and pillaging.

Fine.

I'd hate to have bad guys love me.

If you can't accomplish anything by respecting the Rightful Liberty of everyone else, then I relish your failure.

.

If a cop saves a life...

What if there's a medical emergency? Maybe you don't call 911, but someone else does. Anymore, it's not only the needed medical professionals who arrive- the "Law" shows up, too, for some incomprehensible reason.

Maybe the cop even gets there first. Maybe the cop saves your life.

If a cop happens to show up and saves your life, good. But what does it matter what job your rescuer holds? Wouldn't you be just as grateful if you were rescued by a pimp or an artist? Would you forever worship all artists if one showed up and saved you?

So, why do some people act as though cops are special (no, not in "that" way) because they have the radios that make them aware of crisis situations as they happen?

If I happen upon an emergency scene I may or may not be of help, but I'm also highly unlikely to shoot the person in need due to them being unable to comply with arbitrary orders I bark at them.

Don't fall into the trap of worshiping cops just because some of them happen to show up at the scene of a crisis, and sometimes do the right thing at that moment. Even the cop training can't totally extinguish the ability to do the right thing sometimes.

-

Related: If a thug lends a hand

.

Liberty, but...

 I "love" all the liberty-lovers who are liberty-lovers until they beg the State to save them.

Maybe from "drunk drivers", "illegal immigrants", pedophiles, or just general "chaos".

Either liberty is good and it works, or it isn't and it doesn't. Make up your mind.

I know what experience has shown me.

.

New Link: The Zelman Partisans

Notice the new link over there on the list of blogs and sites: The Zelman Partisans.

It has risen from the ashes of JPFO; may it succeed wildly.

.