Cops should like me. I am on the side cops pretend to be on. I am against theft and aggression. I advocate stepping up and defending people who become victims of either one. Isn't this what cops are supposedly in favor of? Isn't this why many of them claim they took the job?
If a cop opposes me it exposes that he isn't on the side he pretends. It shows he's on the side of the bad guys. Yes, it is as simple as that.
If you are on the side of Rightful Liberty, and opposed to counterfeit "laws" (which, by definition, violate Rightful Liberty) and the enforcement of those "laws", then you are on the right side. Those who oppose you are simply exposing themselves as the bad guys they truly are.
They'll never be honest about it, so I'll continue to point at them and draw attention to what they are.
.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Saturday, November 15, 2014
You are only responsible for your own actions
It's the hardest thing to let people make what you believe to be mistakes- by living a life of dependency or entitlement, or working for the State- when it isn't your business to stop them.
The State is a trap. It may look good in the short term. "Free stuff" or a theft-financed paycheck. It's easier than doing the work required to get it by mutual consent. But too many of our loved ones- or people we are thrust into association with- don't see it that way.
It's normal for decent people to want to warn someone they see stepping into a trap- to save them from themselves. But, if you warn them and they insist on stepping in it anyway, it's not your fault. For them to then be angry at you for your concern is absurd. And, for other observers to somehow blame you for "allowing" it to happen is just as ridiculous.
And, when it goes badly for them it's not your fault.
You can even be justified in saying "I told you so". Because, it's the State; what do you expect? Such comments will not be appreciated, but the truth is often unpopular.
.
The State is a trap. It may look good in the short term. "Free stuff" or a theft-financed paycheck. It's easier than doing the work required to get it by mutual consent. But too many of our loved ones- or people we are thrust into association with- don't see it that way.
It's normal for decent people to want to warn someone they see stepping into a trap- to save them from themselves. But, if you warn them and they insist on stepping in it anyway, it's not your fault. For them to then be angry at you for your concern is absurd. And, for other observers to somehow blame you for "allowing" it to happen is just as ridiculous.
And, when it goes badly for them it's not your fault.
You can even be justified in saying "I told you so". Because, it's the State; what do you expect? Such comments will not be appreciated, but the truth is often unpopular.
.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
If possible, please donate or subscribe
OK. Sorry to interrupt and do this again, but I'm in need of some extra funds. The things I have been doing to try to get extra money aren't paying off, and I hate to ask.... but I'm asking.
So, if you can and you want to, please donate or subscribe at the buttons to the right. At this moment, Paypal is more immediately helpful than Bitcoin- although I won't complain about Bitcoin.
Thank you, and I'm very sorry to be asking.
.
So, if you can and you want to, please donate or subscribe at the buttons to the right. At this moment, Paypal is more immediately helpful than Bitcoin- although I won't complain about Bitcoin.
Thank you, and I'm very sorry to be asking.
.
Net "Neutrality"?
"Net neutrality" isn't neutral. It is pro-State in the extreme. Pro-tyranny.
It is to internet access what Soylent Green is to food. I guess that makes Soylent Green "Food Neutrality".
Yeah, no thank you. I don't want some bureaucrat or puppetician's ideas of "net neutrality" screwing up the internet and making it less of a threat to their plans.
Keep your filthy State- and its legal excrement- off the internet and all forms of communication.
.
It is to internet access what Soylent Green is to food. I guess that makes Soylent Green "Food Neutrality".
Yeah, no thank you. I don't want some bureaucrat or puppetician's ideas of "net neutrality" screwing up the internet and making it less of a threat to their plans.
Keep your filthy State- and its legal excrement- off the internet and all forms of communication.
.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Killing cops?
I don't advocate for anyone to go out and kill cops.
I DO advocate for everyone to defend themselves and their property from aggression and theft with whatever amount of force they have to. Including deadly force.
If cops (or copsuckers) see that as calling for cops to be killed, then, obviously, they are admitting that what cops do- or are likely to do- could be seen to qualify as aggression and theft.
That means someone does need to change their ways, but it isn't me.
.
I DO advocate for everyone to defend themselves and their property from aggression and theft with whatever amount of force they have to. Including deadly force.
If cops (or copsuckers) see that as calling for cops to be killed, then, obviously, they are admitting that what cops do- or are likely to do- could be seen to qualify as aggression and theft.
That means someone does need to change their ways, but it isn't me.
.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Health crises work themselves out
Health crises work themselves out
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 10, 2014.)
Sometimes it takes me a while to realize when people are seriously concerned over something like the current Ebola scare.
I've seen enough of these well-publicized health crises fizzle to know they generally work themselves out before much happens. As an American you are nine times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by terrorists, and you are much more likely to die of something boring, like heart disease, than Ebola. It's just not as dramatic and newsworthy.
We see how government is handling the Ebola scare- either as well as can be expected, or on par with the average preschooler, depending on who you believe. Everyone has their own ideas of what government should be doing, but how could a free society deal with such a terrible disease in the absence of The State?
Since a free society would have no borders of the kind you have become accustomed to, but private property lines instead, there would be no such issue as "immigration". People would either be trespassing or not, and property owners, not government, would be making that determination. So immigration is irrelevant for this discussion.
Airlines (and other transportation providers) would be free to set any rules they see fit for passengers, including cutting off service to places with dangerous epidemics or even requiring on-site medical tests before allowing anyone to board. Failure to take sufficient precautions could scare people away from using their service, could cause liability problems and restitution owed, and might drive them out of business.
At home, a free society wouldn't be confiscating money through "taxation", but experience shows people will chip in when they know it's in their interest to do so. Since it would be in just about everyone's best interest to treat and cure epidemic diseases, charitable hospitals and research facilities would probably be common, well-funded, and would cover the medical bills of those unable to afford even the vastly less expensive and more advanced medical care which will have been freed from the burden of government rationing and regulation.
A sick person who chooses to expose people to his communicable disease, actively infecting others, is just as guilty of aggression as someone shooting into a crowd. This could mean forcible quarantine if he didn't voluntarily cooperate and permit treatment. As a last resort, a contagious person could even be subject to self defensive violence of a more direct nature.
No one can predict exactly how a free society would approach such a problem without violating any innocent individual, but judging by history, and by what is happening now, government's supporters have no better answers.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 10, 2014.)
Sometimes it takes me a while to realize when people are seriously concerned over something like the current Ebola scare.
I've seen enough of these well-publicized health crises fizzle to know they generally work themselves out before much happens. As an American you are nine times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by terrorists, and you are much more likely to die of something boring, like heart disease, than Ebola. It's just not as dramatic and newsworthy.
We see how government is handling the Ebola scare- either as well as can be expected, or on par with the average preschooler, depending on who you believe. Everyone has their own ideas of what government should be doing, but how could a free society deal with such a terrible disease in the absence of The State?
Since a free society would have no borders of the kind you have become accustomed to, but private property lines instead, there would be no such issue as "immigration". People would either be trespassing or not, and property owners, not government, would be making that determination. So immigration is irrelevant for this discussion.
Airlines (and other transportation providers) would be free to set any rules they see fit for passengers, including cutting off service to places with dangerous epidemics or even requiring on-site medical tests before allowing anyone to board. Failure to take sufficient precautions could scare people away from using their service, could cause liability problems and restitution owed, and might drive them out of business.
At home, a free society wouldn't be confiscating money through "taxation", but experience shows people will chip in when they know it's in their interest to do so. Since it would be in just about everyone's best interest to treat and cure epidemic diseases, charitable hospitals and research facilities would probably be common, well-funded, and would cover the medical bills of those unable to afford even the vastly less expensive and more advanced medical care which will have been freed from the burden of government rationing and regulation.
A sick person who chooses to expose people to his communicable disease, actively infecting others, is just as guilty of aggression as someone shooting into a crowd. This could mean forcible quarantine if he didn't voluntarily cooperate and permit treatment. As a last resort, a contagious person could even be subject to self defensive violence of a more direct nature.
No one can predict exactly how a free society would approach such a problem without violating any innocent individual, but judging by history, and by what is happening now, government's supporters have no better answers.
.
Thank you for your service
To the girl who I watched sweeping the floor of the fast food place, smiling even as she did a job I knew she probably didn't love, Thank you for your service.
To the guy at the register of the store where I ran in to buy a couple of things, Thank you for your service.
To the person who delivered my daughter's favorite chips to the convenience store, Thank you for your service.
To the person who recently helped me at the tire store, Thank you for your service.
To Jillian at Amagi Metals, Thank you for your service.
To those who keep civilization running in spite of the best efforts of government, Thank you for your service.
You make my life immeasurably better, and I am completely serious when I say Thank you for your service. No one else's "service" even comes close. Especially not those whose "service" only helps the bad guys gain and retain power. That's a "service" I would prefer to do without.
.
To the guy at the register of the store where I ran in to buy a couple of things, Thank you for your service.
To the person who delivered my daughter's favorite chips to the convenience store, Thank you for your service.
To the person who recently helped me at the tire store, Thank you for your service.
To Jillian at Amagi Metals, Thank you for your service.
To those who keep civilization running in spite of the best efforts of government, Thank you for your service.
You make my life immeasurably better, and I am completely serious when I say Thank you for your service. No one else's "service" even comes close. Especially not those whose "service" only helps the bad guys gain and retain power. That's a "service" I would prefer to do without.
.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Choices and consequences
If you choose the life of a test pilot, you greatly increase your odds of dying in a crash. Sure, you could be minding your own business and have a test flight crash on top of you, but it's unlikely.
If you immerse yourself in the company of aggressors, you greatly increase the odds of being a victim of aggression- even if you are completely innocent.
It turns out that the girl murdered on the trail here yesterday made that particular bad choice.
Her fiance is in jail for murdering another guy back in 2013, and was already a career thug when he got arrested for that death. Even if he is innocent of everything he has been accused of, it would still be unwise to stay close to him if you value your own safety or the safety of your kids. He was obviously immersed in the local aggressor culture, which she then became a part of by willingly choosing to associate with him. Why would anyone willingly choose to make themselves a part of that company?
No, I am not saying "she deserved it". She didn't. But choices have consequences, even if they aren't "fair". If you surround yourself with people who employ aggression or who hang around with people who do, don't be too surprised when some of it spills over onto you or your loved ones. You can love someone and still understand that, for your sake and the sake of your kids, you have got to drop them like a radioactive diseased skunk.
In a perfect world you would only face consequences for the actions you take. As long as you weren't the aggressor, no harm would come to you. You could love, live with, and hang around with Hitler, a gangbanger, or a cop, and no matter what they were involved in, nothing would rub off on you. We all know the world is not perfect, and you can't just do whatever you want and expect no negative consequences will come of it. It's not fair; it's reality. Go into it with your eyes wide open, and think about whether it is really worth it.
.
If you immerse yourself in the company of aggressors, you greatly increase the odds of being a victim of aggression- even if you are completely innocent.
It turns out that the girl murdered on the trail here yesterday made that particular bad choice.
Her fiance is in jail for murdering another guy back in 2013, and was already a career thug when he got arrested for that death. Even if he is innocent of everything he has been accused of, it would still be unwise to stay close to him if you value your own safety or the safety of your kids. He was obviously immersed in the local aggressor culture, which she then became a part of by willingly choosing to associate with him. Why would anyone willingly choose to make themselves a part of that company?
No, I am not saying "she deserved it". She didn't. But choices have consequences, even if they aren't "fair". If you surround yourself with people who employ aggression or who hang around with people who do, don't be too surprised when some of it spills over onto you or your loved ones. You can love someone and still understand that, for your sake and the sake of your kids, you have got to drop them like a radioactive diseased skunk.
In a perfect world you would only face consequences for the actions you take. As long as you weren't the aggressor, no harm would come to you. You could love, live with, and hang around with Hitler, a gangbanger, or a cop, and no matter what they were involved in, nothing would rub off on you. We all know the world is not perfect, and you can't just do whatever you want and expect no negative consequences will come of it. It's not fair; it's reality. Go into it with your eyes wide open, and think about whether it is really worth it.
.
"Sovereign citizens"
Besides some of the consistency problems the "sovereign citizen" folk have in other areas, such as philosophically, the very name they call themselves is completely self-contradictory. "Sovereign"? "Citizen"? Pick one or the other- you can't be both.
"Sovereign" individuals own their own life and the products of that life. It doesn't mean they are immune to being robbed by thieves, but anyone can be robbed.
"Citizens" are owned by a State. They are said, by definition, to "owe allegiance" to that State. That's the opposite of self ownership.
They are basically claiming to be "self-owning property"- a "self-owning slave". That term would make just as much sense. Which is none.
I understand the sentiment- or at least some of it. They want to express their independence, while celebrating what they think of as "their country" or "patriotic heritage". But, really, there must be a more sensible way to express that sentiment. Or, just drop all the contradictions and come to the free side. We have... well, everything worth having.
.
"Sovereign" individuals own their own life and the products of that life. It doesn't mean they are immune to being robbed by thieves, but anyone can be robbed.
"Citizens" are owned by a State. They are said, by definition, to "owe allegiance" to that State. That's the opposite of self ownership.
They are basically claiming to be "self-owning property"- a "self-owning slave". That term would make just as much sense. Which is none.
I understand the sentiment- or at least some of it. They want to express their independence, while celebrating what they think of as "their country" or "patriotic heritage". But, really, there must be a more sensible way to express that sentiment. Or, just drop all the contradictions and come to the free side. We have... well, everything worth having.
.
Sunday, November 09, 2014
Dangerous cops, and those who don't grovel before them
Anytime a cop is suspected (or actually caught) threatening or murdering an innocent person, the incident has to be interminably "investigated" by the cop's own gang, while the cop remains free to repeat his behavior. Even if he is placed on "administrative leave" he is still walking among us; probably emboldened by the lack of consequences.
Anytime a non-cop (you know: a person) is accused, often without a shred of evidence, of "threatening" a cop by not bowing down and grovelling sufficiently, the person is "arrested", and locked up, as a "public danger".
It's as if we are supposed to think "we" are better off with even a psychopathically aggressive cop among us than "we" would be if he were not on the streets... and that "we" can't afford to have people among us who don't immediately roll over for any demand that psychopathically aggressive cops may squeal at them.
Sorry, but I can't twist my mind sufficiently for that to make any sense to me.
.
Anytime a non-cop (you know: a person) is accused, often without a shred of evidence, of "threatening" a cop by not bowing down and grovelling sufficiently, the person is "arrested", and locked up, as a "public danger".
It's as if we are supposed to think "we" are better off with even a psychopathically aggressive cop among us than "we" would be if he were not on the streets... and that "we" can't afford to have people among us who don't immediately roll over for any demand that psychopathically aggressive cops may squeal at them.
Sorry, but I can't twist my mind sufficiently for that to make any sense to me.
.
Saturday, November 08, 2014
Don't be a jerk
I may not be powerful, but even so, some things are still within my power.
It is within my power to make just about anyone I run into miserable. Maybe even ruin their day. Maybe by not paying attention and running them off the road. Maybe by ignoring them in the grocery store if they say something to me. Maybe by a snarky comment online.
I try very hard not to do this to anyone- without a good reason. I know I often fail.
If I'm going to make someone miserable, I want there to at least be a real, good reason- like they are a person who simply refuses to stop initiating force or violating the property of others. In that case, my actions which make them miserable (if they actually do) aren't really coming from me, they are a reaction I take to protect myself and others.
But as long as I don't "catch you in the act", and I honestly believe you mean well, and may eventually come around and reject being a thug, I'll do my best to not make your day worse for having encountered me. Yes, even enforcers.
.
It is within my power to make just about anyone I run into miserable. Maybe even ruin their day. Maybe by not paying attention and running them off the road. Maybe by ignoring them in the grocery store if they say something to me. Maybe by a snarky comment online.
I try very hard not to do this to anyone- without a good reason. I know I often fail.
If I'm going to make someone miserable, I want there to at least be a real, good reason- like they are a person who simply refuses to stop initiating force or violating the property of others. In that case, my actions which make them miserable (if they actually do) aren't really coming from me, they are a reaction I take to protect myself and others.
But as long as I don't "catch you in the act", and I honestly believe you mean well, and may eventually come around and reject being a thug, I'll do my best to not make your day worse for having encountered me. Yes, even enforcers.
.
Thursday, November 06, 2014
Wouldn't see the truth if he stepped right in a big steaming heap of it
I just got this email a while back:
Yes, it surely does look stupid, but not for the reason the original author may have thought. Obviously he wouldn't see the truth, no matter how plainly it presented itself.
Being an obvious State worshiper (as long as it's a flavor he likes) he'd never see how all those complaints go away when you eliminate the fundamental problem: The State.
Dear Mr. Obama:
I’m planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.
We’re planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and we’ll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.
I’m sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, the President of Mexico , that I’m on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking Government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican Government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver’s license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but I don’t plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won’t make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my housetop, put U.S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I’ll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I’ll need income tax credits so that although I don’t pay Mexican taxes, I’ll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Government pays $4,500.00 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I’ll get a monthly income in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all of his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that the President of Mexico won’t mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Do you see how stupid this looks when you put it in writing???
Yes, it surely does look stupid, but not for the reason the original author may have thought. Obviously he wouldn't see the truth, no matter how plainly it presented itself.
Being an obvious State worshiper (as long as it's a flavor he likes) he'd never see how all those complaints go away when you eliminate the fundamental problem: The State.
No government ("public") kinderprisons; no welfare; no government "licenses", bureaucraps, or paperwork; no "taxation". If these things- or the way they are administered- are really upsetting you, eliminate the fundamental problem.
Yeah, the solution really is that simple, yet getting people to demand it- and expect- it is the hardest job there is.
.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014
More "good cops"- or at least normal ones
Another reason to oppose "laws" forbidding "texting and driving".
Those "laws" are used as a pretext to demand access to your cell phone, and cops have been caught stealing and sharing nude selfies from women's phones.
Sure, you could say you shouldn't take "those kind of pictures", but it's your body and your phone. And besides, where's the fun in that?
.
Those "laws" are used as a pretext to demand access to your cell phone, and cops have been caught stealing and sharing nude selfies from women's phones.
Sure, you could say you shouldn't take "those kind of pictures", but it's your body and your phone. And besides, where's the fun in that?
.
Tuesday, November 04, 2014
Time to stop hiding, take control
Time to stop hiding, take control
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 3, 2014)
Most people are more libertarian they they'll admit.
After all, they buy things from the store rather than steal. They ask instead of demand. They try to avoid resorting to violence as long as they are given any choice. And most people are in favor of self defense when faced with someone who refuses to live by the same rules.
For that matter, most people actually live in a condition of anarchy in their daily lives. No one tells them who they are allowed to fall in love with, what they will eat, where they must shop, whether they are allowed to use the bathroom, where they can work, or what to think or believe. Regardless of what you have been told, that is anarchy: living without being ruled by someone else. It isn't the same as "chaos", which isn't necessarily the horror you've been let to believe, either.
Anarchy, what some call "voluntaryism", is liberty. It means doing whatever doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights. It means recognizing that since humans are flawed, the worst possible thing anyone could do is to put some of these flawed people in charge of everyone else. Such a system attracts those who want power over others, but fear facing the consequences of wielding it without belonging to a large and powerful gang.
It shouldn't surprise you to realize you've been indoctrinated against anarchy by government schools and other institutions which depend on you fearing liberty. People who want to have power to control you need you to believe their control is better than the alternative of you controlling, and being responsible for, your own life. If they can keep you fearful, you'll allow them to do things to you which you'd never otherwise permit.
They also depend on pitting you against your neighbors. If they can get you to beg someone else to control your neighbor, through limiting his choices of what to do with his own body or his own property, they gain power. And never forget they are encouraging your neighbor to seek protection from you, too. It's a sad and silly circle I refuse to be a part of.
Since you do just fine without being ruled in almost all of your daily life, what makes you believe you need to be ruled in any of it? Almost no one believes they need to be ruled; it's those "others" who need to be controlled. What makes you fear others and feel so inadequate when facing them that you want to hide behind someone else's skirt? It's time to stop hiding and take the wheel. You'll be glad you did.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 3, 2014)
Most people are more libertarian they they'll admit.
After all, they buy things from the store rather than steal. They ask instead of demand. They try to avoid resorting to violence as long as they are given any choice. And most people are in favor of self defense when faced with someone who refuses to live by the same rules.
For that matter, most people actually live in a condition of anarchy in their daily lives. No one tells them who they are allowed to fall in love with, what they will eat, where they must shop, whether they are allowed to use the bathroom, where they can work, or what to think or believe. Regardless of what you have been told, that is anarchy: living without being ruled by someone else. It isn't the same as "chaos", which isn't necessarily the horror you've been let to believe, either.
Anarchy, what some call "voluntaryism", is liberty. It means doing whatever doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights. It means recognizing that since humans are flawed, the worst possible thing anyone could do is to put some of these flawed people in charge of everyone else. Such a system attracts those who want power over others, but fear facing the consequences of wielding it without belonging to a large and powerful gang.
It shouldn't surprise you to realize you've been indoctrinated against anarchy by government schools and other institutions which depend on you fearing liberty. People who want to have power to control you need you to believe their control is better than the alternative of you controlling, and being responsible for, your own life. If they can keep you fearful, you'll allow them to do things to you which you'd never otherwise permit.
They also depend on pitting you against your neighbors. If they can get you to beg someone else to control your neighbor, through limiting his choices of what to do with his own body or his own property, they gain power. And never forget they are encouraging your neighbor to seek protection from you, too. It's a sad and silly circle I refuse to be a part of.
Since you do just fine without being ruled in almost all of your daily life, what makes you believe you need to be ruled in any of it? Almost no one believes they need to be ruled; it's those "others" who need to be controlled. What makes you fear others and feel so inadequate when facing them that you want to hide behind someone else's skirt? It's time to stop hiding and take the wheel. You'll be glad you did.
.
Government employees pay zero "taxes"
It was suggested I blog about the fact that no "government" employee ever pays "taxes".
I thought I had written about that before- and I had.
It's an important fact to understand, so I hope you don't mind my posting it again.
I thought I had written about that before- and I had.
Perpetual motion and "taxation"
Recently I again ran into the erroneous belief that government employees pay "taxes". This is a myth that just keeps on walking around, undead and looking for brains to munch.
The fact of the matter: Government employees pay no taxes. Ever. Zero. Period.
The pretense that they do is the financial equivalent of a perpetual motion device that keeps the economically ignorant among us (more) content with the status quo.
All government employee pay comes from government-confiscated "taxes", and all the "taxes" they pay go "back" to government. (The money never actually left the government's bloody hands in the first place.) Plus some money is always lost in the shuffle between parties. The lost money is equivalent to the waste heat in a mechanical system.
Put another way: If I paid you $100 dollars, but then demanded you pay a "tax" of 20% back to me, did I just give you $100 or did I give you only $80? Contrast it with this scenario: If I paid you $100 but you immediately paid a third party $20, I have actually, in fact, paid you $100 even if you passed some of it along to someone else. There is a difference.
.
Monday, November 03, 2014
Religion vs Rightful Liberty
My political/social opinions on religion pretty much begin and end with whether that religion- put into practice- violates Rightful Liberty.
All religions may have good points and bad points- I'm not familiar with all religions, or everything any of them teach in every instance. I suppose if there were no positives, no one would have ever began following it. I could be wrong.
The ancient texts may advocate horrendous things that the modern followers mostly ignore. In that case, the religion is worse than it's modern followers.
Or, the ancient texts may show a path of rightful liberty and neighborliness the modern followers ignore in order to push an agenda they prefer. In that case the modern followers are worse than their religion.
Both circumstances can even happen simultaneously in the same religion, depending on what part is being focused on.
Or, a religion can be vile, and it's modern followers may follow the vile precepts to the letter while adding their own abominations to it. I think we can all see this happening quite a bit today.
In all my readings of the Bible, I never remember even one instance of Jesus saying "There ought to be a law."
Nor "Vote ye, therefore, for the lesser of two evils so that the laws of the world can be changed in order to bring Heaven on Earth."
Didn't happen, and goes against everything else he is quoted as saying.
If, as a Christian, you try to enshrine your religion as "law", you spit on your religion and on Rightful Liberty.
If, as a Muslim, you try to enforce your religion as "law", you may be following the rules of your religion, but you are still trampling Rightful Liberty- which trumps any religion. Sorry.
In both cases, I will defy you.
.
All religions may have good points and bad points- I'm not familiar with all religions, or everything any of them teach in every instance. I suppose if there were no positives, no one would have ever began following it. I could be wrong.
The ancient texts may advocate horrendous things that the modern followers mostly ignore. In that case, the religion is worse than it's modern followers.
Or, the ancient texts may show a path of rightful liberty and neighborliness the modern followers ignore in order to push an agenda they prefer. In that case the modern followers are worse than their religion.
Both circumstances can even happen simultaneously in the same religion, depending on what part is being focused on.
Or, a religion can be vile, and it's modern followers may follow the vile precepts to the letter while adding their own abominations to it. I think we can all see this happening quite a bit today.
In all my readings of the Bible, I never remember even one instance of Jesus saying "There ought to be a law."
Nor "Vote ye, therefore, for the lesser of two evils so that the laws of the world can be changed in order to bring Heaven on Earth."
Didn't happen, and goes against everything else he is quoted as saying.
If, as a Christian, you try to enshrine your religion as "law", you spit on your religion and on Rightful Liberty.
If, as a Muslim, you try to enforce your religion as "law", you may be following the rules of your religion, but you are still trampling Rightful Liberty- which trumps any religion. Sorry.
In both cases, I will defy you.
.
Sunday, November 02, 2014
Vanishing statists
Months ago I had someone "friend" me on Facebook. A "conservative" statist, I would guess, from the things I read on his page.
He added me and then warned me that libertarians and anarchists always ended up running away and "unfriending" him when they couldn't counter his arguments or get past his logic.
I accepted the challenge without comment.
After he responded to one or two things I wrote in the first week or so, he has slipped off into the sunset of silence. He's still on my "friend list", but I haven't seen hide nor hair of him in any comments. I wonder what happened to his self-assurance?
Then again, I tend to wonder if the guy is a sort of troll, making "conservative" statists look ridiculous by the things he promotes. It's possible.
.
He added me and then warned me that libertarians and anarchists always ended up running away and "unfriending" him when they couldn't counter his arguments or get past his logic.
I accepted the challenge without comment.
After he responded to one or two things I wrote in the first week or so, he has slipped off into the sunset of silence. He's still on my "friend list", but I haven't seen hide nor hair of him in any comments. I wonder what happened to his self-assurance?
Then again, I tend to wonder if the guy is a sort of troll, making "conservative" statists look ridiculous by the things he promotes. It's possible.
.
Saturday, November 01, 2014
"I would shoot somebody!"
Very often, when the subject of guns comes up with someone I am just meeting, they will make the comment that they "could never carry a gun", because they would "get mad and shoot someone".
That's disturbing to know.
If someone doesn't trust themselves with a gun, how can I trust them? At all?
Could part of their problem be that they don't demand responsibility of themselves, but feel it's OK to go through life like a spoiled child who could strike out anytime they get offended? Maybe a gun would force them to grow up; to take control of their impulses.
I do know it had that effect on me.
.
That's disturbing to know.
If someone doesn't trust themselves with a gun, how can I trust them? At all?
Could part of their problem be that they don't demand responsibility of themselves, but feel it's OK to go through life like a spoiled child who could strike out anytime they get offended? Maybe a gun would force them to grow up; to take control of their impulses.
I do know it had that effect on me.
.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Good job, PA State Police!
Your overwrought, expensive, and childish vendetta has done something I have been trying to do for years: shown some diehard statists that the only ones you truly "protect and serve" are your own gang members.
I call that a "win"!
.
Happy Halloween!
For your Halloween reading pleasure (?), here are two of my creepy stories from the past:
Melissa's Ghost (With help from Claire Wolfe)
The Werewolf
.
Melissa's Ghost (With help from Claire Wolfe)
The Werewolf
 |
| The Ghoul of Oasis |
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)