Speed limits have got to be one of the silliest and most pointless expressions of the control-freak State.
Very few people drive dangerously fast. And those who do aren't slowed down by arbitrary speed limits.
Yet, speed limits are usually set just a hair below the speed everyone feels like driving. That's not for safety, since the speed limit could safely be set at the speed just about everyone drives anyway, but that would deprive the thieves of the State a revenue stream, and would give their highwaymen nothing to do.
Theft- that is really all there is to speed limits.
.
Saturday, December 06, 2014
Friday, December 05, 2014
Cops and body cameras
I'm all about solving problems.
That's why I keep repeating that police NEED to be abolished.
I also think, until then, cops need to be followed everywhere they go by people with video cameras- so that they can't pick their nose without it being put on Youtube.
But, I also want cops to be wired for video so their actions can incriminate themselves. However, we all see how "conveniently" body cams malfunction when cops decide (premeditate) to molest or murder. The excuse is "battery life" or "I forgot".
So, how about this:
Cameras which are automatically activated anytime a gun or Taser leaves the holster, and can't be shut off until the weapon is back in the holster. That wouldn't have done anything for Eric Garner, of course- his murder was on video, and his murderer didn't use a weapon. I'm not sure about cameras which are triggered by the sleeve being pressed against a neck, but anything that hobbles or inconveniences enforcers is a win for the rest of us.
I also realize that until murdering cops are held accountable, all the evidence in the world won't change anything. But, maybe my idea would help that, too, by changing "public perception".
.
That's why I keep repeating that police NEED to be abolished.
I also think, until then, cops need to be followed everywhere they go by people with video cameras- so that they can't pick their nose without it being put on Youtube.
But, I also want cops to be wired for video so their actions can incriminate themselves. However, we all see how "conveniently" body cams malfunction when cops decide (premeditate) to molest or murder. The excuse is "battery life" or "I forgot".
So, how about this:
Cameras which are automatically activated anytime a gun or Taser leaves the holster, and can't be shut off until the weapon is back in the holster. That wouldn't have done anything for Eric Garner, of course- his murder was on video, and his murderer didn't use a weapon. I'm not sure about cameras which are triggered by the sleeve being pressed against a neck, but anything that hobbles or inconveniences enforcers is a win for the rest of us.
I also realize that until murdering cops are held accountable, all the evidence in the world won't change anything. But, maybe my idea would help that, too, by changing "public perception".
.
Patreon
Yes, I signed up because "everyone's doing it".
I guess I am susceptible to the bandwagon effect, after all.
Here's my page: KentForLiberty on Patreon
And, notice my "milestone goal". Is it a threat, or a promise? You decide. ;)
Those of you subscribing through Paypal (or anyone who'd like to start doing so), don't switch (because I like the convenience)- just let me know if you'd also like to get a reward like those my Patreon supporters will enjoy.
Thanks!
.
I guess I am susceptible to the bandwagon effect, after all.
Here's my page: KentForLiberty on Patreon
And, notice my "milestone goal". Is it a threat, or a promise? You decide. ;)
Those of you subscribing through Paypal (or anyone who'd like to start doing so), don't switch (because I like the convenience)- just let me know if you'd also like to get a reward like those my Patreon supporters will enjoy.
Thanks!
.
Thursday, December 04, 2014
Abolish the boot heel of tyranny
Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the face of the people. Your turn is coming, no matter how "law abiding" you believe yourself to be.
Unless policing is put to an end.
I am sick to death of cops molesting, beating, robbing, murdering, waylaying, raping, and causing general harm and mayhem- and idiots still fawning over them as if they are HEROES or something.
Get a clue: they are not heroes, they are the enemy of everything decent and good. Yes, they may also be the enemy of some bad people too, but don't make the fatal error of thinking that makes them your buddy. The Crips and Bloods and MS-13 are enemies (I guess- I have no real knowledge of pathetic gangs of any sort), but they are not your friends, either.
"Officer Friendly" was probably always a myth- even he committed acts of enforcement justified by counterfeit "laws" and lived on stolen money. You don't thank (or worship) a mugger just because he gets a kitten out of a tree occasionally.
You can't be a cop, performing "your duties" which go along with the "job", and be a decent or "good" person. It's impossible and self-contradictory. Yes, you may be "nice" to people you aren't enforcing on- or threatening with enforcement. No one can survive without being nice to most people most of the time- not even the worst monster imaginable.
Face the reality. Cops are bad, and are a destabilizing, dehumanizing, force for evil. They are not now, and have never been, "necessary".
Abolish the police. And in the meantime, shun them to death and let them starve in the cold, without selling them anything they need to survive, and without excusing those who continue to support these worthless tax junkies.
Yes, abolish the police and replace them with Rightful Liberty and a universally armed population. You and your descendants will be glad you did.
.
Unless policing is put to an end.
I am sick to death of cops molesting, beating, robbing, murdering, waylaying, raping, and causing general harm and mayhem- and idiots still fawning over them as if they are HEROES or something.
Get a clue: they are not heroes, they are the enemy of everything decent and good. Yes, they may also be the enemy of some bad people too, but don't make the fatal error of thinking that makes them your buddy. The Crips and Bloods and MS-13 are enemies (I guess- I have no real knowledge of pathetic gangs of any sort), but they are not your friends, either.
"Officer Friendly" was probably always a myth- even he committed acts of enforcement justified by counterfeit "laws" and lived on stolen money. You don't thank (or worship) a mugger just because he gets a kitten out of a tree occasionally.
You can't be a cop, performing "your duties" which go along with the "job", and be a decent or "good" person. It's impossible and self-contradictory. Yes, you may be "nice" to people you aren't enforcing on- or threatening with enforcement. No one can survive without being nice to most people most of the time- not even the worst monster imaginable.
Face the reality. Cops are bad, and are a destabilizing, dehumanizing, force for evil. They are not now, and have never been, "necessary".
Abolish the police. And in the meantime, shun them to death and let them starve in the cold, without selling them anything they need to survive, and without excusing those who continue to support these worthless tax junkies.
Yes, abolish the police and replace them with Rightful Liberty and a universally armed population. You and your descendants will be glad you did.
.
People don't realize what it's like...
One of the most astonishingly ignorant (or stupid) comments I saw in the wake of the Ferguson grand jury decision was this:
The same could be said about an armed robber or a rapist. They face death just to do their "job", too. and their "job" is no more disgusting than that of a cop. I do "realize" a lot about cops, from peaceable interactions with some.
And the "job" of committing acts of enforcement isn't even that dangerous. Unless you're a coward, Copsuckers don't realize that a safe "job" which shouldn't be done, and which violates everyone it touches, is going to inspire some backlash and hatred.
If cops have a problem with facing death for "just" doing their "job", why don't they quit and get honest jobs? It's a simple solution.
.
Ppl don't realize what it's really like being a police officer and facing death just to do your job.
The same could be said about an armed robber or a rapist. They face death just to do their "job", too. and their "job" is no more disgusting than that of a cop. I do "realize" a lot about cops, from peaceable interactions with some.
And the "job" of committing acts of enforcement isn't even that dangerous. Unless you're a coward, Copsuckers don't realize that a safe "job" which shouldn't be done, and which violates everyone it touches, is going to inspire some backlash and hatred.
If cops have a problem with facing death for "just" doing their "job", why don't they quit and get honest jobs? It's a simple solution.
.
Wednesday, December 03, 2014
Another invigorating Facebook debate. No, seriously.
If you have Facebook and the ability to see this post, I highly recommend it.
This is one of those debates with a statist that leaves me feeling re-charged and invigorated.
.
This is one of those debates with a statist that leaves me feeling re-charged and invigorated.
.
Fictional good guys, real life villains
Sometimes I have a little trouble swallowing fiction that portrays government as the good guys.
I have to remind myself it's just fiction. Like friendly pirates on kids' shows. Or shows where the plot revolves around the existence of magic. Fiction, nothing more.
Yet, dishonestly portraying government employees as "good guys" seems somewhat more damaging than those other sorts of fiction. After all, few of us will ever run into pirates (other than those of the IRS or the highway patrol), nor would we mistake them for the friendly characters from fiction if we did, and Harry Potter isn't our next door neighbor.
Government employees, and the "laws" they enforce against us, are all around. It is guaranteed they will shove their way into our lives at some point. Fooling people into believing they are "good guys" can cause real, lasting damage.
No, I don't call for "laws" requiring the media to portray them honestly- as the monstrously aggressive tax-junkies they truly are. I just remind you to keep straight the difference between reality and fiction in your own mind.
.
I have to remind myself it's just fiction. Like friendly pirates on kids' shows. Or shows where the plot revolves around the existence of magic. Fiction, nothing more.
Yet, dishonestly portraying government employees as "good guys" seems somewhat more damaging than those other sorts of fiction. After all, few of us will ever run into pirates (other than those of the IRS or the highway patrol), nor would we mistake them for the friendly characters from fiction if we did, and Harry Potter isn't our next door neighbor.
Government employees, and the "laws" they enforce against us, are all around. It is guaranteed they will shove their way into our lives at some point. Fooling people into believing they are "good guys" can cause real, lasting damage.
No, I don't call for "laws" requiring the media to portray them honestly- as the monstrously aggressive tax-junkies they truly are. I just remind you to keep straight the difference between reality and fiction in your own mind.
.
Tuesday, December 02, 2014
Statism no way to deal with people
Statism no way to deal with people
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 31, 2014)
Walking down a lonely trail, with no one else around, do your politics matter? Even to yourself?
When shipwrecked on a deserted island, or sitting alone in your house, it doesn't matter how you believe you should relate to other people. Politics is hypothetical in isolation. Once you add one other person- or an entire society of individuals- to the mix, how you interact with them becomes critically important and displays your character in vivid detail for all to see.
There are healthy ways to deal with other people and there are unhealthy ways. Trying to find the pragmatic way to control others and their property is the unhealthy way. The belief that governing others is a legitimate way to relate to people is called statism, and The State is how the unhealthy method manifests itself on a large scale. Crime- real crime, such as theft and aggression- is nothing but statism on an individual scale; stripped bare of the veil of legitimacy a government may appear to give it.
Respecting the rights of everyone to live as they see fit, as long as they aren't violating the person or property of any other individual- while maintaining your absolute human right to defend your life, liberty, and property against all violators- is the only healthy way to deal with other people. It's the opposite of statism: libertarianism.
I can't begin to tell you how many times I have seen the argument that liberty only works in desert island scenarios, but as soon as you add more people you must find a way to control each other "for the good of your society"; a euphemism for finding an excuse to violate each other in some way, and usually appoint someone to do it on your behalf in order to maintain the illusion that you are still civilized. This is exactly backwards.
Like any principle lubricating the gears between yourself and others, libertarianism only matters when you are around another person. Unfortunately, it seems to require more thought and effort than simply passing arbitrary and harmful laws, and letting someone else- paid by taxation taken from you and your victims- enforce those laws against anyone who may annoy you.
Alone, you could be a homicidal dictator, and no one would be harmed. When around other people you had better drop that childishness and start respecting everyone's rights if you want to live an ethical life.
It's unfortunate that statism tends to shield violators from their victims, but this still doesn't make the violators right, nor does it make their victims wrong when one defends himself from the violations.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 31, 2014)
Walking down a lonely trail, with no one else around, do your politics matter? Even to yourself?
When shipwrecked on a deserted island, or sitting alone in your house, it doesn't matter how you believe you should relate to other people. Politics is hypothetical in isolation. Once you add one other person- or an entire society of individuals- to the mix, how you interact with them becomes critically important and displays your character in vivid detail for all to see.
There are healthy ways to deal with other people and there are unhealthy ways. Trying to find the pragmatic way to control others and their property is the unhealthy way. The belief that governing others is a legitimate way to relate to people is called statism, and The State is how the unhealthy method manifests itself on a large scale. Crime- real crime, such as theft and aggression- is nothing but statism on an individual scale; stripped bare of the veil of legitimacy a government may appear to give it.
Respecting the rights of everyone to live as they see fit, as long as they aren't violating the person or property of any other individual- while maintaining your absolute human right to defend your life, liberty, and property against all violators- is the only healthy way to deal with other people. It's the opposite of statism: libertarianism.
I can't begin to tell you how many times I have seen the argument that liberty only works in desert island scenarios, but as soon as you add more people you must find a way to control each other "for the good of your society"; a euphemism for finding an excuse to violate each other in some way, and usually appoint someone to do it on your behalf in order to maintain the illusion that you are still civilized. This is exactly backwards.
Like any principle lubricating the gears between yourself and others, libertarianism only matters when you are around another person. Unfortunately, it seems to require more thought and effort than simply passing arbitrary and harmful laws, and letting someone else- paid by taxation taken from you and your victims- enforce those laws against anyone who may annoy you.
Alone, you could be a homicidal dictator, and no one would be harmed. When around other people you had better drop that childishness and start respecting everyone's rights if you want to live an ethical life.
It's unfortunate that statism tends to shield violators from their victims, but this still doesn't make the violators right, nor does it make their victims wrong when one defends himself from the violations.
.
Wilson vs Brown, or cops vs everyone else?
The thing that bothers me most about the thuggish enforcer Darren Wilson vs freelance thug Michael Brown deadly encounter is that I don't for one second believe that if you or I (or any non-enforcer) had been in Wilson's place we would have been treated the same and given the same deference and courtesy.
We would have probably been arrested (even if not "officially") and put through suspected-criminal treatment even if we ultimately didn't end up being charged with any sort of crime. We wouldn't have been allowed to remain free, but would have been subjected to tests and forced to immediately explain our actions without the benefit of a political gang like that which was allowed to to insulate and protect Wilson from scrutiny until he had time to come up with a story.
I am in support of self defense even if you are a cop. And, maybe this really was a case of self defense. But enforcers are not entitled to special treatment. I want everyone who claims self defense to be treated the same by the "authorities" as Wilson was. If that means they all "get away with it", then too bad.
The double standard illustrated by this case (and every case of a shooting by enforcer) is what really infuriates me.
.
We would have probably been arrested (even if not "officially") and put through suspected-criminal treatment even if we ultimately didn't end up being charged with any sort of crime. We wouldn't have been allowed to remain free, but would have been subjected to tests and forced to immediately explain our actions without the benefit of a political gang like that which was allowed to to insulate and protect Wilson from scrutiny until he had time to come up with a story.
I am in support of self defense even if you are a cop. And, maybe this really was a case of self defense. But enforcers are not entitled to special treatment. I want everyone who claims self defense to be treated the same by the "authorities" as Wilson was. If that means they all "get away with it", then too bad.
The double standard illustrated by this case (and every case of a shooting by enforcer) is what really infuriates me.
.
American and US laws and the Ten Commandments
Are "our laws" based on the Ten Commandments? (I say "our laws", in quotes, because that's a silly way to phrase it. "Laws" belong to that mental illness called "The State", not to you or me.)
I see people claiming all the time that the biblical Ten Commandments form the foundation of "American Law". I sure hope not!
Actually, the first four commandments are strictly religious in nature and have no business being imposed by "law". In fact, the First Amendment forbids it (as does decency). That, of course, didn't stop Christian Sharia from being imposed.
Adultery and coveting might be bad ideas, personally, but they have no business being made "law" either. Adultery could be a contractual violation- or it might not be. Depending on your specific contract, and whether the other party violated it first. Making it a universal "law" is silly.
Coveting is a purely mental condition and, as long as you didn't act on it and steal (which is covered later), can't hurt anyone but yourself. Self-damaging thoughts are not within anyone's authority to forbid. Only a tyrant would pretend to have the authority to tell you what you are allowed to think- and I don't see how this could ever be expected to be enforced.
Honoring your parents might generally be nice (but certainly not universally a good thing) but would make a lousy "law".
Only the commandments against murder, theft, and bearing false witness have any business being defended against (notice I don't say they should be made law, since all laws are either unnecessary or harmful- you don't need "laws" forbidding aggression or theft to be right to defend yourself from them). These are secular commandments that aren't unique to Judeo-Christian morality. Natural Law covers them quite nicely without the baggage.
So, how many "laws" in the US Police State are really based upon the Ten Commandments? A small minority of them. And many of the ones which are, shouldn't be "laws" at all.
How many exceptions to the principles of the three remaining secular commandments are granted to vicious monsters as long as they commit their violations under the veil of "government"? More than it is possible to count.
So, US "laws" are founded upon the Ten Commandments? Don't be ridiculous!
.
I see people claiming all the time that the biblical Ten Commandments form the foundation of "American Law". I sure hope not!
Actually, the first four commandments are strictly religious in nature and have no business being imposed by "law". In fact, the First Amendment forbids it (as does decency). That, of course, didn't stop Christian Sharia from being imposed.
Adultery and coveting might be bad ideas, personally, but they have no business being made "law" either. Adultery could be a contractual violation- or it might not be. Depending on your specific contract, and whether the other party violated it first. Making it a universal "law" is silly.
Coveting is a purely mental condition and, as long as you didn't act on it and steal (which is covered later), can't hurt anyone but yourself. Self-damaging thoughts are not within anyone's authority to forbid. Only a tyrant would pretend to have the authority to tell you what you are allowed to think- and I don't see how this could ever be expected to be enforced.
Honoring your parents might generally be nice (but certainly not universally a good thing) but would make a lousy "law".
Only the commandments against murder, theft, and bearing false witness have any business being defended against (notice I don't say they should be made law, since all laws are either unnecessary or harmful- you don't need "laws" forbidding aggression or theft to be right to defend yourself from them). These are secular commandments that aren't unique to Judeo-Christian morality. Natural Law covers them quite nicely without the baggage.
So, how many "laws" in the US Police State are really based upon the Ten Commandments? A small minority of them. And many of the ones which are, shouldn't be "laws" at all.
How many exceptions to the principles of the three remaining secular commandments are granted to vicious monsters as long as they commit their violations under the veil of "government"? More than it is possible to count.
So, US "laws" are founded upon the Ten Commandments? Don't be ridiculous!
.
Monday, December 01, 2014
Drug "offenses"? Set 'em free!
As you probably know, I don't "believe in" imprisonment. I would rather aggressors and thieves be shot and killed by their intended victims (or a rescuer) at the time and place of the violation, and I realize that imprisonment doesn't result in restitution or justice.
But, I'll ignore all that for a moment.
Even if someone has done something bad, if they are caged for something else that isn't bad, but only "illegal", they should be let out.
That means even if a person attacked an innocent person, but got "arrested" for (or convicted of) drug possession instead, he should be set free. Force the State's goons to focus on the actual wrong, instead of the easy (and lazy) mala prohibita crap that they usually use.
That would result in fewer innocent people in the State's cages; propping up the State's prison industry.
Yes, that also means more bad guys on the streets (temporarily). It's a necessary trade-off until a free society evolves. And, if actual bad guys attack, "shoot, shovel, and shut up".
.
But, I'll ignore all that for a moment.
Even if someone has done something bad, if they are caged for something else that isn't bad, but only "illegal", they should be let out.
That means even if a person attacked an innocent person, but got "arrested" for (or convicted of) drug possession instead, he should be set free. Force the State's goons to focus on the actual wrong, instead of the easy (and lazy) mala prohibita crap that they usually use.
That would result in fewer innocent people in the State's cages; propping up the State's prison industry.
Yes, that also means more bad guys on the streets (temporarily). It's a necessary trade-off until a free society evolves. And, if actual bad guys attack, "shoot, shovel, and shut up".
.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Painkiller equality
If it's wrong to smoke pot, it is also wrong to take aspirin.
The two things are ethically identical. Although aspirin is probably more dangerous to your health, and easier to overdose on.
If it is wrong to smoke pot, it is also wrong to drink coffee.
If it is wrong to use one substance to relieve stress, alleviate pain, relax, or feel pleasure, it is wrong to do the same using any other substance or technique. The substance or technique is irrelevant.
Making up (or supporting) "laws" in denial of this fact is wrong. Supporting those who enforce those "laws" is heinous.
.
The two things are ethically identical. Although aspirin is probably more dangerous to your health, and easier to overdose on.
If it is wrong to smoke pot, it is also wrong to drink coffee.
If it is wrong to use one substance to relieve stress, alleviate pain, relax, or feel pleasure, it is wrong to do the same using any other substance or technique. The substance or technique is irrelevant.
Making up (or supporting) "laws" in denial of this fact is wrong. Supporting those who enforce those "laws" is heinous.
.
Saturday, November 29, 2014
"Support your local LEOs"
Those who sport a "support the police" sticker- or similar government extremist sentiment stickers- on their vehicle bumpers disturb me.
I assume a certain percentage display those stickers as a talisman (I've known some who admitted as much), hoping that by showing loyalty to the State they won't be targeted for victimization. But most probably really mean it. And that's sick.
They might as well have "I love genocide" bumper stickers.
Or "Give cannibalism a try!"
"Bring back slavery!"
"Burn all witches"
"Support Rapists"
"Child Sacrifice to ensure the harvest!"
Yeah, it really is that bad.
Few of them would ever be able to recognize what it really is they are supporting, but you know.
.
I assume a certain percentage display those stickers as a talisman (I've known some who admitted as much), hoping that by showing loyalty to the State they won't be targeted for victimization. But most probably really mean it. And that's sick.
They might as well have "I love genocide" bumper stickers.
Or "Give cannibalism a try!"
"Bring back slavery!"
"Burn all witches"
"Support Rapists"
"Child Sacrifice to ensure the harvest!"
Yeah, it really is that bad.
Few of them would ever be able to recognize what it really is they are supporting, but you know.
.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
TOLFA for the holidays
I could find out how long it has been since I reminded you to attend TOLFA- The On Line Freedom Academy- but I won't because it doesn't matter. A reminder is never out of line.
The holidays are a busy time. The second harvest festival and that old approaching Solstice give people a good excuse to celebrate before winter bears down. But the holidays also apparently give people a lot of time to spare, since they tend to watch a lot of televised games. And, sometimes hide in a spare room to catch a breath from all the relatives. Or is that just me?
Why not use some of that time to start going through the TOLFA course? Consider it a gift you are giving yourself- and one you'll probably want to share with others.
.
The holidays are a busy time. The second harvest festival and that old approaching Solstice give people a good excuse to celebrate before winter bears down. But the holidays also apparently give people a lot of time to spare, since they tend to watch a lot of televised games. And, sometimes hide in a spare room to catch a breath from all the relatives. Or is that just me?
Why not use some of that time to start going through the TOLFA course? Consider it a gift you are giving yourself- and one you'll probably want to share with others.
.
Thankfulness
I am thankful for people. I am thankful for my family. I am thankful for the few friends who have stayed friends with me- as difficult as that may be- over the years. And, although I miss my friends more than I can possibly express, I am thankful that most of them are just an email away when I need to reach out- even if I usually decide to not bother them. I am thankful for those who have loved me in the past.
I am thankful for the people who have made me expand my horizons in ways I never imagined I could. I am thankful for those who encouraged me to put myself into uncomfortable situations where I felt like I was totally out of place- but then stood by me while I got comfortable enough to enjoy the experience.
I am thankful for those who comment on my blog posts, my Facebook dribblings, and those who share my writings with others. Those who read what I write, and then take action on it, make me feel I am not wasting my time. And that is a great feeling. I am thankful for the people who choose to voluntarily support and encourage my writing habit with actual money.
There are other, maybe trivial, things I am thankful for.
I am thankful that I can eat just about anytime I want to. And that there is a variety of things I can choose from. Not to knock the "buy local" notion, but I'm very happy I am not trapped into eating only what is grown locally, when it happens to be in season. I am thankful that I have heat in the winter- and even more incredibly, that I have cool air in my house in the summer. I am thankful I don't usually sleep on rocks or roots, and that I don't wake up with my head having been buried while I slept by an industrious gopher. Until it has happened to you, you may not realize you should be thankful when it doesn't happen. I am thankful I can make fire (or heat) without having to actually make fire.
I am thankful that I can get on this electronic wonder box and interact with people all over the planet- although I am thankful I can also choose not to interact with Nigerian princes and Ghanaian lonely-hearts with the push of a button.
I am thankful that I can still go most days without being forced to interact with government employees. I am thankful that in most cases, even ignoring their "laws" comes without immediate consequences.
I am thankful for the experiences I have had and the memories I keep inside my head. I am thankful I can still imagine a better future.
.
I am thankful for the people who have made me expand my horizons in ways I never imagined I could. I am thankful for those who encouraged me to put myself into uncomfortable situations where I felt like I was totally out of place- but then stood by me while I got comfortable enough to enjoy the experience.
I am thankful for those who comment on my blog posts, my Facebook dribblings, and those who share my writings with others. Those who read what I write, and then take action on it, make me feel I am not wasting my time. And that is a great feeling. I am thankful for the people who choose to voluntarily support and encourage my writing habit with actual money.
There are other, maybe trivial, things I am thankful for.
I am thankful that I can eat just about anytime I want to. And that there is a variety of things I can choose from. Not to knock the "buy local" notion, but I'm very happy I am not trapped into eating only what is grown locally, when it happens to be in season. I am thankful that I have heat in the winter- and even more incredibly, that I have cool air in my house in the summer. I am thankful I don't usually sleep on rocks or roots, and that I don't wake up with my head having been buried while I slept by an industrious gopher. Until it has happened to you, you may not realize you should be thankful when it doesn't happen. I am thankful I can make fire (or heat) without having to actually make fire.
I am thankful that I can get on this electronic wonder box and interact with people all over the planet- although I am thankful I can also choose not to interact with Nigerian princes and Ghanaian lonely-hearts with the push of a button.
I am thankful that I can still go most days without being forced to interact with government employees. I am thankful that in most cases, even ignoring their "laws" comes without immediate consequences.
I am thankful for the experiences I have had and the memories I keep inside my head. I am thankful I can still imagine a better future.
.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Does Liberty require bravery? Is statism for cowards?
Do you do the right thing, knowing there will be unfortunate consequences?
Do you respect the property rights of others even if you know they may well use their property against you in the future?
Do you support the right of humans to travel anywhere they want to go, with the permission of property owners, even knowing some bad guys are among them?
Do you defend the rights of others to make their own mistakes, knowing some innocent could still be harmed?
If not, why not?
.
Do you respect the property rights of others even if you know they may well use their property against you in the future?
Do you support the right of humans to travel anywhere they want to go, with the permission of property owners, even knowing some bad guys are among them?
Do you defend the rights of others to make their own mistakes, knowing some innocent could still be harmed?
If not, why not?
.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Free society can survive just fine
Free society can survive just fine
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 24, 2014)
"But who will build the roads?"
Not only does this question come up anytime someone discusses eliminating government altogether; it comes up when anyone discusses cutting it back- as an example of "essential" minimal government.
What is it about roads that they can't exist without government?
Governments don't build roads. They hire contractors to do the work. So "who would build the roads?" The same people who build them now.
Governments don't even pay those contractors- they coercively extract, from the people, the money paid to the contractors. So, "Who would pay?" The same people who pay now: those who benefit from the road.
Bureaucracy makes everything more expensive, and stifles or prevents innovation, which decreases quality. Roads freed of government would have an automatic advantage in both areas.
When individuals profit or otherwise benefit from a road touching their property, the act of "eminent domain" loses justification.
People who object to privately owned roads complain about paying tolls, falsely believing the roads are "free" now, and believing private roads would be too expensive. You get what you pay for, but government always comes at a premium. Tolls are not the only way roads might be financed. Businesses eager for your patronage could chip in to ensure good roads lead you to their doors.
Not only that, but individuals and companies who owned roads would not be able to duck responsibility for poor road conditions. They could be held personally responsible if they allowed ice or a pothole to damage your car, or a drunk driver to crash into you.
That's right- privately owned roads could still forbid drunk driving. However, they probably couldn't get away with sobriety checkpoints. Their customers might flock to a competitor who didn't hire highwaymen to waylay and molest travelers without cause. People who believe checkpoints increase safety could still choose that route.
I also wonder why people assume a free society would continue to need roads as we know them. Pavement only matters because our cars bounce alone, dependent upon the surface conditions. The flying cars we were promised half a century ago can't seem to get past the various red tape traps erected by governments. The same red tape prevents innovation which could even make future wheeled cars lose the need for a paved ribbon beneath them.
Private vehicles have been a boon for liberty, and governments have- almost from the start- sought ways to infringe this liberty by increasing the cost, inconvenience, and by limiting the allowable benefits. It's time to end this war on travel.
If something is necessary and wanted, a free society will provide it. Better, cheaper, and in more variety than you can possibly imagine.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 24, 2014)
"But who will build the roads?"
Not only does this question come up anytime someone discusses eliminating government altogether; it comes up when anyone discusses cutting it back- as an example of "essential" minimal government.
What is it about roads that they can't exist without government?
Governments don't build roads. They hire contractors to do the work. So "who would build the roads?" The same people who build them now.
Governments don't even pay those contractors- they coercively extract, from the people, the money paid to the contractors. So, "Who would pay?" The same people who pay now: those who benefit from the road.
Bureaucracy makes everything more expensive, and stifles or prevents innovation, which decreases quality. Roads freed of government would have an automatic advantage in both areas.
When individuals profit or otherwise benefit from a road touching their property, the act of "eminent domain" loses justification.
People who object to privately owned roads complain about paying tolls, falsely believing the roads are "free" now, and believing private roads would be too expensive. You get what you pay for, but government always comes at a premium. Tolls are not the only way roads might be financed. Businesses eager for your patronage could chip in to ensure good roads lead you to their doors.
Not only that, but individuals and companies who owned roads would not be able to duck responsibility for poor road conditions. They could be held personally responsible if they allowed ice or a pothole to damage your car, or a drunk driver to crash into you.
That's right- privately owned roads could still forbid drunk driving. However, they probably couldn't get away with sobriety checkpoints. Their customers might flock to a competitor who didn't hire highwaymen to waylay and molest travelers without cause. People who believe checkpoints increase safety could still choose that route.
I also wonder why people assume a free society would continue to need roads as we know them. Pavement only matters because our cars bounce alone, dependent upon the surface conditions. The flying cars we were promised half a century ago can't seem to get past the various red tape traps erected by governments. The same red tape prevents innovation which could even make future wheeled cars lose the need for a paved ribbon beneath them.
Private vehicles have been a boon for liberty, and governments have- almost from the start- sought ways to infringe this liberty by increasing the cost, inconvenience, and by limiting the allowable benefits. It's time to end this war on travel.
If something is necessary and wanted, a free society will provide it. Better, cheaper, and in more variety than you can possibly imagine.
.
Aggressive non-aggression?
Can you be aggressive without actual aggression being the result?
I think it's possible.
Speaking aggressively, or behaving or pointing in "an aggressive way" still isn't aggression- no force has been initiated- but could be an indication of imminent aggression. A warning to those around to be on guard. Perhaps it is covered under the part of the ZAP which states: "...nor to advocate ... its initiation". It could be taken as a credible threat.
I think it's possible.
Speaking aggressively, or behaving or pointing in "an aggressive way" still isn't aggression- no force has been initiated- but could be an indication of imminent aggression. A warning to those around to be on guard. Perhaps it is covered under the part of the ZAP which states: "...nor to advocate ... its initiation". It could be taken as a credible threat.
In most cases, acting as if you might soon initiate force could bring self defensive actions into your life- and most people wouldn't blame the person you were focused on.
It's probably better to remain calm and not behave in ways that will probably be seen as "aggressive" unless the situation really calls for you to use violence in defense of person or property. Just to make sure to stay on the right side.
And wearing gang colors- excuse me, uniforms- could well step over that line.
.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Happy slaves and happy statists
Would it be better to be a happy slave or an unhappy free human? It depends on your definition of "better" I suppose, but I think happiness is preferable. I almost envy those who can be happy slaves. I couldn't be- not without having large portions of my brain removed or destroyed.
And, I'm not sure I could be happy even if I were totally free, if certain things remained lacking in my personal life. Would real freedom make those things more likely to find? I guess that depends on what keeps me from finding them- if it's just personal flaws, then freedom probably wouldn't help much.
That doesn't mean it's better to be a happy statist than an unhappy voluntaryist, though.
A slave isn't harming others by his enslavement. The fault isn't really his, but his enslaver's.
A statist, however, would be hard pressed to remain harmless to those around him, just by virtue (or lack thereof) of his belief in the legitimacy of theft and aggression. And if his "happiness" depended on him coercing and stealing, then his happiness is a terrible thing. Everyone else would be better off if he were miserably unhappy.
So, although it is tragic to be free, and non-aggressive, and yet still not happy, to me it seems much more tragic to be enslaved and unhappy. And there just isn't any good to be found in being a statist, happy or not.
.
And, I'm not sure I could be happy even if I were totally free, if certain things remained lacking in my personal life. Would real freedom make those things more likely to find? I guess that depends on what keeps me from finding them- if it's just personal flaws, then freedom probably wouldn't help much.
That doesn't mean it's better to be a happy statist than an unhappy voluntaryist, though.
A slave isn't harming others by his enslavement. The fault isn't really his, but his enslaver's.
A statist, however, would be hard pressed to remain harmless to those around him, just by virtue (or lack thereof) of his belief in the legitimacy of theft and aggression. And if his "happiness" depended on him coercing and stealing, then his happiness is a terrible thing. Everyone else would be better off if he were miserably unhappy.
So, although it is tragic to be free, and non-aggressive, and yet still not happy, to me it seems much more tragic to be enslaved and unhappy. And there just isn't any good to be found in being a statist, happy or not.
.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Attracted to aggressors
So, a woman thinks she wants to marry Charles Manson. That's bizarre, but it's her business.
It's also no more bizarre than women who are attracted to cops or those in the military.
So, why do people seem to be shocked by her decision, but not by women who chase uniforms? If you are attracted to aggressive individuals (including, obviously, those who "only" advocate and delegate aggression), what difference does it make how they carry out their evil? Why would it matter that their aggression is "officially sanctioned"?
It really doesn't.
It seems like a psychological problem to me.
.
It's also no more bizarre than women who are attracted to cops or those in the military.
So, why do people seem to be shocked by her decision, but not by women who chase uniforms? If you are attracted to aggressive individuals (including, obviously, those who "only" advocate and delegate aggression), what difference does it make how they carry out their evil? Why would it matter that their aggression is "officially sanctioned"?
It really doesn't.
It seems like a psychological problem to me.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)