(Previously published on Patreon)
I can't believe this guy is serious, but I guess he is. He wants you to fear "police accountability" and he's willing to lie to make you see his side.
Let me address the assumptions (and falsehoods) this Chief LEO makes in his column: link I'll look at this by the numbers.
1. He claims "more training" would result in a need for at least 25% more personnel- by which he means more armed thugs infesting your town. America is burdened with too many cops already. I'd prefer firing them all, but no rational person could possibly believe we have "too few"- or even the right number of cops. There are at least 10 times too many cops- and probably it's worse than that by at least an order of magnitude. There are better ways to deal with emergencies than by inviting a steroid (and "tax") addict with authority issues and "qualified immunity" into your life. People need to get weaned off of cops
2. He wants "holistic support" because the poor little cowards get stressed, especially with poor community support. Well, stop acting like some elite squad of assassins and thieves, and maybe some of that community support will come back. He is worried that police need to be kept strong. Ummm, yeah, I don't think that's the problem here. In fact, police are much too strong- therein lies the root of the problem- and need to have that strength dialed back. A lot. No more military toys. No more guns on the hip- let them call upon armed passersby if they need armed support. No more privileges for wearing the clown suit. And, most definitely no more "qualified immunity" whatsoever.
3. This next whine is so ignorant I can't believe he actually put it in writing for others to witness: "Everybody seems to know their rights and not their obligations. The law requires compliance with a lawful command." No one has any obligation toward a cop that they don't have to anyone else they encounter. You have an obligation to not attack and not violate their property. The problem is that cops forget they have this exact same obligation to everyone else, too.
And, that is why almost every command a cop makes comes with no obligation. If a cop orders you to drop your gun, he is breaking the law, so you are not "required" to "comply". The fact that the pathetic tax junkie will murder you for hesitating to comply doesn't prove anything except that he is a murderer. Saying the "law requires compliance with a lawful command" is a tautology of the silliest kind. The law says it is the law. No! Really? LOL! What does the law say the law is? The law, of course!
4. Now, he is embarrassing himself again. He says "Bring us minority applicants that you want to be your police officers". OK. I want no one to be "my" police officers. "Race", gender, sexual orientation, or whatever else make zero difference to me. And, don't say "your police officers" because I have never owned one, nor would I want to. Those cops belong to politicians and bureaucrats, only. That is who they "protect and serve". And obey.
Then he goes off about indoctrinating children into believing cops are good guys and becoming one is somehow honorable. Ha! The only way to be a "great police officer" is to walk off the "job" and start advocating for liberty instead of supporting cops. The only "great cops" are ex-cops who now hate cops.
5. This is probably his most pitiful point. Here he is painting cops as the victims. If I try to kidnap someone or steal their property, and they fight back, I am not a victim. Nope. My victim might turn the tables, but if I don't like it I can refuse to attack and steal in the first place. I guess cops are lesser beings who can't make that choice.
He says resisting is an "offense against an officer"- which is backwards. There is an inalienable human right to resist being assaulted. Even the "laws" used to reflect the fact that an "arrest" committed against a person who hadn't done anything wrong was subject to being resisted- even if you had to kill the enforcer in the process.
"Stop dropping charges where police are crime victims." This really isn't the problem. No cop, while on duty, is the victim of a crime. The perpetrator, probably, but not the victim. This is just a case of a coward trying to switch it up. It's like a rapist claiming "Rape!" and blaming his victim when he gets caught in the act.
"...a crime against the police is a crime against everyone’s peace and dignity." No it isn't. The existence of police is a crime against everyone's peace and dignity. Want to help? Quit.
"We really do carry the badge on your behalf." Then DROP it. Now! You do not act on my behalf, nor with my consent.
6. I can almost agree with part of this one. Local police shouldn't be controlled by DC. DC is just as bad, but further away- letting them use the local enforcers as local hitmen isn't good. Of course, this is already being done, regardless. Local cops are told to enforce federal rules along with local ones. Local enforcers are also being bought with bribes of military hardware. No DC oversight? No federal toys. Those simply must go together.
"Policing in a democratic society must be under scrutiny. But let’s do this examination together." It has been done, and you failed spectacularly. Now, get off the tax teat, never again initiate force nor steal, find something useful to do, and do it. Or, keep whining about what special little snowflakes all your brethren are.
He totally failed to address any of the actual issues, trying instead to turn them inside out and make it look like the SS are the victims of the people in the gas chamber. Poor little cops! I hope enough people outside his gang see him as the foolish aggressor he has exposed himself to be.
.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
All men are created (with) equal (rights)
All men are created equal. But, apparently, that's a difficult concept for some to understand. They try to make it mean something it doesn't so they can justify certain behaviors.
Yeah... except, that isn't what he meant. Obviously there are physical and mental differences among humans- even as babies. But, where all humans are equal and identical is in the rights we are born with. This is the result of ignoring the rest of the quote, which goes on to say: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Nothing can alter (or eliminate) those rights- not "citizenship", location, past behavior, permission slips, badges, jobs, skin color, intelligence, nothing.
It's really not a hard concept to understand, and takes more work to not understand it.
.
"There is something rather sweet about being Jeffersonian and believing that on some level all human creatures are born equal" (link)
Yeah... except, that isn't what he meant. Obviously there are physical and mental differences among humans- even as babies. But, where all humans are equal and identical is in the rights we are born with. This is the result of ignoring the rest of the quote, which goes on to say: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Nothing can alter (or eliminate) those rights- not "citizenship", location, past behavior, permission slips, badges, jobs, skin color, intelligence, nothing.
It's really not a hard concept to understand, and takes more work to not understand it.
.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Connecting dots between Brent Aguilar and a murderer
I have mentioned before the case of the young mother stabbed to death on the local trail I like to walk. I have speculated she may have been murdered as "payback" for her former fiancee killing a guy at a party a year and a half ago. It turns out there is an alternate possibility suggested by new revelations.
I am not accusing anyone of anything, but simply connecting some dots which will not be connected by local police or prosecutors- dots which may have no connection at all, but it is a real possibility which needs to be considered. So I'll do it.
Here's what I know, or what has been reported.
As mentioned before, her former fiancee was arrested and charged with stabbing a young guy to death at a party a year and a half ago.
She was stabbed to death by a guy as she was at the trail with her 6 year old son.
The crime scene investigators, a special team from the state of New Mexico tasked with investigating crime scenes- along with the local cops who first showed up at the scene- managed to overlook the apparent murder weapon, which was found by the victim's relatives after the police tape had been removed and the investigators had left.
The person eventually arrested and charged with her murder claimed he had been hired to kill her by person's unnamed. He then changed his story and said he was just "having a bad day". I strongly suspect he changed his story to protect himself from being silenced by whoever hired him. I originally believed he had been hired by friends, family, or associates of the guy her fiancee had killed, to kill her in revenge
But, here's the new development which led to my speculation:
Turns out the father of her two kids is Jorge Corona- the man who was brutally attacked by officer Brent Aguilar. Yeah, you remember him. Right?
So, here's the line of inquiry which "officials" and "authorities" will never pursue. What if her killer was hired by Aguilar, or a "supporter" of Aguilar, as a warning or threat to Corona? Or as simple revenge.
Anyone looking at this objectively would have to admit it s a possibility. It should be looked into. If only to show I am wildly wrong with this speculation.
We already know Brent Aguilar is aggressive. We already know that, as a cop, he is willing to steal and harm the innocent through the enforcement of arbitrary and harmful "laws". We know that Corona has caused him aggravation due to making the attack public, and by bringing legal attention his way. It is possible that Aguilar- or someone believing they were acting on his behalf- hired the killer.
Think about it.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but every possibility must be considered, and this is just as possible as her murder being payback for her fiancee's actions, and more probable than this having been a random attack. And, obviously, I don't expect anyone in any position of "authority" to ever even admit thinking about this. They must protect their own gang at all costs.
.
I am not accusing anyone of anything, but simply connecting some dots which will not be connected by local police or prosecutors- dots which may have no connection at all, but it is a real possibility which needs to be considered. So I'll do it.
Here's what I know, or what has been reported.
As mentioned before, her former fiancee was arrested and charged with stabbing a young guy to death at a party a year and a half ago.
She was stabbed to death by a guy as she was at the trail with her 6 year old son.
The crime scene investigators, a special team from the state of New Mexico tasked with investigating crime scenes- along with the local cops who first showed up at the scene- managed to overlook the apparent murder weapon, which was found by the victim's relatives after the police tape had been removed and the investigators had left.
The person eventually arrested and charged with her murder claimed he had been hired to kill her by person's unnamed. He then changed his story and said he was just "having a bad day". I strongly suspect he changed his story to protect himself from being silenced by whoever hired him. I originally believed he had been hired by friends, family, or associates of the guy her fiancee had killed, to kill her in revenge
But, here's the new development which led to my speculation:
Turns out the father of her two kids is Jorge Corona- the man who was brutally attacked by officer Brent Aguilar. Yeah, you remember him. Right?
So, here's the line of inquiry which "officials" and "authorities" will never pursue. What if her killer was hired by Aguilar, or a "supporter" of Aguilar, as a warning or threat to Corona? Or as simple revenge.
Anyone looking at this objectively would have to admit it s a possibility. It should be looked into. If only to show I am wildly wrong with this speculation.
We already know Brent Aguilar is aggressive. We already know that, as a cop, he is willing to steal and harm the innocent through the enforcement of arbitrary and harmful "laws". We know that Corona has caused him aggravation due to making the attack public, and by bringing legal attention his way. It is possible that Aguilar- or someone believing they were acting on his behalf- hired the killer.
Think about it.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but every possibility must be considered, and this is just as possible as her murder being payback for her fiancee's actions, and more probable than this having been a random attack. And, obviously, I don't expect anyone in any position of "authority" to ever even admit thinking about this. They must protect their own gang at all costs.
.
Cannabis infographic
I have kind of gotten away from posting these infographics, since I feel I am giving free advertising... but here's one showing the pros and cons of Cannabis use that I'll make an exception for:
Clicken to embiggen
Everyone should be free to use whatever medicine they choose- and they have the responsibility to know the pros and cons- since ALL medicines have them.
.
Tuesday, December 09, 2014
Virgin’s crash tragic but inevitable
Virgin’s crash tragic but inevitable
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 7, 2014)
Being a fan of spaceflight, especially manned spaceflight, I was saddened by the breakup and crash of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo.
I hope the problems which caused the loss of the vehicle, and the death of her pilot, are quickly found and solved. Even in the shadow of this new disaster, I'd book passage on the first flight if I had the money.
The truth is unfortunate: tragedies and disasters are not only inevitable, they are necessary. It's how the technological chaff gets winnowed away. Each disaster makes the entire system better, and, as long as the bureaucratic inertia is manageable, shows those building the dream where the changes must be made. It would be great if these problems could be found and fixed some other way, but the evidence of technological history seems to show they can't.
Back in the days when the NASA space shuttles were just beginning to fly, I knew a fatal failure was inevitable and wondered whether the first would occur during a launch or a landing. My fear was that once it did happen, bureaucrats would lose their nerve. It happened, and they did. There will always be plenty of people who understand the risks and are willing to face them. Commercial spaceflight will expand, even if governments continue to erect barriers. Most people are simply more brave than politicians and bureaucrats can imagine.
It seems ridiculous that governmental agencies believe they are uniquely qualified to investigate accidents such as these. When a government spacecraft accident kills people, government investigates itself; when a private spacecraft accident kills people, government once again investigates. That's as silly as having government investigate wrongdoing by its own employees as well as by freelance bad guys. Oh, wait...
I prefer private space efforts over governmental ones, but whether any corporate project is truly "private", due to the nature of corporations and their relationship with the State, is debatable. Unless you can hide your project while in development, launch without warning, stay ahead of the obligatory military pursuit, and have an off-world destination so you won't need to come back into any government's claimed territory, I suppose government interference is unavoidable for now.
Once off-planet, the IRS won't be able to sniff out all the voluntary acts of commerce between consenting individuals, among the asteroids or beyond. It's called "Liberty"! That's part of the reason for the heavy-handed control being exerted. If government notices you, they will insinuate themselves into your business one way or another. Therefore I understand the concessions being made by the commercial space entrepreneurs, even as I wish they'd rebel. The future belongs to the free.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 7, 2014)
Being a fan of spaceflight, especially manned spaceflight, I was saddened by the breakup and crash of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo.
I hope the problems which caused the loss of the vehicle, and the death of her pilot, are quickly found and solved. Even in the shadow of this new disaster, I'd book passage on the first flight if I had the money.
The truth is unfortunate: tragedies and disasters are not only inevitable, they are necessary. It's how the technological chaff gets winnowed away. Each disaster makes the entire system better, and, as long as the bureaucratic inertia is manageable, shows those building the dream where the changes must be made. It would be great if these problems could be found and fixed some other way, but the evidence of technological history seems to show they can't.
Back in the days when the NASA space shuttles were just beginning to fly, I knew a fatal failure was inevitable and wondered whether the first would occur during a launch or a landing. My fear was that once it did happen, bureaucrats would lose their nerve. It happened, and they did. There will always be plenty of people who understand the risks and are willing to face them. Commercial spaceflight will expand, even if governments continue to erect barriers. Most people are simply more brave than politicians and bureaucrats can imagine.
It seems ridiculous that governmental agencies believe they are uniquely qualified to investigate accidents such as these. When a government spacecraft accident kills people, government investigates itself; when a private spacecraft accident kills people, government once again investigates. That's as silly as having government investigate wrongdoing by its own employees as well as by freelance bad guys. Oh, wait...
I prefer private space efforts over governmental ones, but whether any corporate project is truly "private", due to the nature of corporations and their relationship with the State, is debatable. Unless you can hide your project while in development, launch without warning, stay ahead of the obligatory military pursuit, and have an off-world destination so you won't need to come back into any government's claimed territory, I suppose government interference is unavoidable for now.
Once off-planet, the IRS won't be able to sniff out all the voluntary acts of commerce between consenting individuals, among the asteroids or beyond. It's called "Liberty"! That's part of the reason for the heavy-handed control being exerted. If government notices you, they will insinuate themselves into your business one way or another. Therefore I understand the concessions being made by the commercial space entrepreneurs, even as I wish they'd rebel. The future belongs to the free.
.
Use it or lose it- be an outlaw
(Previously posted on Patreon)
Every day, in thousands of little (and not so little) ways, you and I are being trained to be obedient and compliant. Being molded into Mundanes.
Every day, in thousands of little (and not so little) ways, you and I are being trained to be obedient and compliant. Being molded into Mundanes.
From the tightly choreographed dance with the TSA's "special" idiots at the airports, where the smallest misstep can result in being fingered for "extra attention" or being barred from flying, to the way cops demand you grovel in their presence or risk being murdered, our immediate unquestioning obedience is expected.
It will make it easier to make people open their homes for gun confiscation or to convince them to climb into the cattle cars if they are already in the habit of obeying cops and politicians.
It will make it easier to make people open their homes for gun confiscation or to convince them to climb into the cattle cars if they are already in the habit of obeying cops and politicians.
It takes a lot of practice to train people to to betray their own best interests for the benefit of compliance to false authority.
I understand how it is sometimes fatal to be seen as being defiant- you have to pick your battles. That gang is large and aggressive and just looking for an excuse to punish you.
However, as long as you are going through the motions of being obedient when you must, are you also practicing defiance when and where you can?
Just as obedience takes practice, so does outlawry.
If violating an arbitrary or harmful "law" can make your life better, and the benefit is greater than the risk of being caught, do it! Yes, I am advocating YOU "break laws" when you can. Not to do wrong things like initiate force or violate property, but to enhance your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is right to violate bad rules. Often, it is even right to violate harmless but worthless rules. For practice.
Exercise those outlaw brain cells and muscles. Get in the habit of doing what's right rather than what "laws" order you to do. Look for opportunities to break "laws" whenever you can, in small but meaningful ways. Get good at defiance and thinking for yourself.
Have fun.
It's elementary. Once you eliminate the impossible...
(Previously published on my Patreon page*)
Understanding liberty comes somewhat naturally to me because it is who I am. That doesn't mean I don't make mistakes. But I want to be better. I want to always be improving. So I read what others have written concerning liberty, and then once it gets into my brain, I digest it, take it apart, and see what makes it tick. Without even really trying- it's automatic. Then I try to make it part of me, and share it with you when it is ripe. That's where this blog comes from.
I want to be able to dig to the very foundation of liberty in every situation. I want to recognize it from every angle under any condition. I'll pull out a magnifying glass and look at all it's nooks and crannies and warts and worn spots. I want to be the Sherlock Holmes of liberty- without the bad personality parts (some of which I may share with the character anyway).
I think that will make me a better person- or at least minimize any bad. And everything I have learned has shown me that respecting liberty in others is necessary to being a decent human being.
But, I have to put more work into the other aspects of my life. And some of those come much less naturally to me. I know I can be unemotional. I also know I can be overly emotional once triggered by something I deeply care about. I know I can be too quiet in person, and I know I can overshare. I know I can be too cold, and I can be too passionate. Balance is a good thing. Through it all, I know if I keep Rightful Liberty as the goal, I'm heading in the right direction.
* I haven't decided how to do this. I will probably have some that stay "subscriber only", and others I will publish here at a later date. As I have mentioned, all Paypal subscribers will also get the "subscriber only" blogs in an email. I feel a little bad holding some things back, and will not let the "quality" of the blog suffer for Patreon. I really do need to increase my income, though. Feel free to chime in with thoughts about this development.
.
Understanding liberty comes somewhat naturally to me because it is who I am. That doesn't mean I don't make mistakes. But I want to be better. I want to always be improving. So I read what others have written concerning liberty, and then once it gets into my brain, I digest it, take it apart, and see what makes it tick. Without even really trying- it's automatic. Then I try to make it part of me, and share it with you when it is ripe. That's where this blog comes from.
I want to be able to dig to the very foundation of liberty in every situation. I want to recognize it from every angle under any condition. I'll pull out a magnifying glass and look at all it's nooks and crannies and warts and worn spots. I want to be the Sherlock Holmes of liberty- without the bad personality parts (some of which I may share with the character anyway).
I think that will make me a better person- or at least minimize any bad. And everything I have learned has shown me that respecting liberty in others is necessary to being a decent human being.
But, I have to put more work into the other aspects of my life. And some of those come much less naturally to me. I know I can be unemotional. I also know I can be overly emotional once triggered by something I deeply care about. I know I can be too quiet in person, and I know I can overshare. I know I can be too cold, and I can be too passionate. Balance is a good thing. Through it all, I know if I keep Rightful Liberty as the goal, I'm heading in the right direction.
-
* I haven't decided how to do this. I will probably have some that stay "subscriber only", and others I will publish here at a later date. As I have mentioned, all Paypal subscribers will also get the "subscriber only" blogs in an email. I feel a little bad holding some things back, and will not let the "quality" of the blog suffer for Patreon. I really do need to increase my income, though. Feel free to chime in with thoughts about this development.
.
Monday, December 08, 2014
Excuses to do nothing
Why do you hesitate to advocate for real Rightful Liberty? Because you see the effects it could have in our current situation?
There will always be some government-manufactured problem which will seem to be an excuse to not solve another government-manufactured problem with the application of copious amounts of Liberty.
You can't get rid of all anti-immigration "laws" because of welfare.
You can't get rid of the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs because of the poor economy and lack of jobs.
You can't call for the elimination of "taxation" because too many are dependent upon the "services" it pays for.
You can't get rid of cops because anti-gun "laws" have emboldened aggressors and thieves.
You can't get rid of all anti-gun "laws" because .... well, because I suppose criminals of all stripes are scared of being shot.
You can't abolish kinderprisons because people have forgotten that educating themselves and their children is one of the main responsibilities of humans.
The excuses are seemingly endless.
Those are no reason to keep doing the wrong thing for fear of what might happen as a consequence of doing the right thing. Do the right thing- get rid of the counterfeit rules- and then eliminate each new government-created problem as it crops up.
That's how you get from here to there; not the "strategy" of refusing to ever do anything right because someone has set up a system that means the right thing might cause a problem.
Get over the cowardice. Stand up and do the right thing every time you have a choice.
.
There will always be some government-manufactured problem which will seem to be an excuse to not solve another government-manufactured problem with the application of copious amounts of Liberty.
You can't get rid of all anti-immigration "laws" because of welfare.
You can't get rid of the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs because of the poor economy and lack of jobs.
You can't call for the elimination of "taxation" because too many are dependent upon the "services" it pays for.
You can't get rid of cops because anti-gun "laws" have emboldened aggressors and thieves.
You can't get rid of all anti-gun "laws" because .... well, because I suppose criminals of all stripes are scared of being shot.
You can't abolish kinderprisons because people have forgotten that educating themselves and their children is one of the main responsibilities of humans.
The excuses are seemingly endless.
Those are no reason to keep doing the wrong thing for fear of what might happen as a consequence of doing the right thing. Do the right thing- get rid of the counterfeit rules- and then eliminate each new government-created problem as it crops up.
That's how you get from here to there; not the "strategy" of refusing to ever do anything right because someone has set up a system that means the right thing might cause a problem.
Get over the cowardice. Stand up and do the right thing every time you have a choice.
.
Sunday, December 07, 2014
Call a Crackhead?
(Previously posted on Patreon)
But, what about this: Why not set up an alternate "emergency number" to compete with 911, but one to be monitored by volunteers. No "tax" money involved, so no coercion or theft required. Since no one would be forced to call them in an emergency, not being the only game in town, they would have incentive to "police" their own ranks and keep out anyone who creates problems (or murders at the drop of a hat), or who seems twitchy and potentially dangerous- you know, opposite of how cops operate.
I think lots of people would love to join such a group. And, instead of the has-been high school bullies attracted to the police department, its shiny trinkets, and gangland opportunities, you'd get people who actually want to help. Not those who want to throw around "authority" and enjoy a license to kill.
When you call this number and someone shows up, if you don't want that person's help because you know the individual and don't trust them, or because they are escalating the situation, send them on their way. They might think you unwise, but if they didn't leave they'd be trespassing and would be liable. And there would be no "qualified immunity" or FOP to hide behind.
Since they would have no "authority" to kidnap ("arrest") beyond what any other person has (you know, the way cops are actually supposed to be) there would be no great risk, and since they would be held accountable for murdering an innocent person, they wouldn't be as trigger-happy or dangerously aggressive. They would have no incentive to meddle and look for "drugs" or weapons which have nothing to do with their business, but would need to limit themselves to the business at hand.
I know I'd feel better calling these guys for help.
No "system" would be perfect, but the only advantage cops have now, as "first responders", is that they have a dispatcher and a standardized phone number. You can't usually call just one number and have immediate response and backup- if you call your friend and he doesn't answer the phone, you may not have time to make a second call. So, most people call the cops even knowing there is no situation so bad it can't be made worse by inviting a cop into the mix. This idea would fix that.
Yes, I realize cops and those who worship them would object to this idea- and fight you with every "law" they could dream up. After all, something like this would expose just what a bad idea cops are, and how dangerous and worthless they have become. "We" can't have that, now, can we?
Added: Someone found this, which sounds like a very similar idea. I have no personal experience or knowledge of them, but it might be a good thing to look into: Peacekeeper
Added later: Here is another option to check out: Cell 411
.
So, which is it?
Libertarianism is often criticized as only being for "rich white guys".
Of course, in the next breath it will be said to only be for losers who live in their mom's basement.
It's for people who think too much... or is it for people who don't think things through?
It is said it can't work in the "real world" by people who support Statism- which has failed to accomplish the supposed reason for its imposition every single time it has been imposed- for thousands of years.
But, statists have never been accused of being rational or consistent. Just "pragmatic" and "normal".
.
Of course, in the next breath it will be said to only be for losers who live in their mom's basement.
It's for people who think too much... or is it for people who don't think things through?
It is said it can't work in the "real world" by people who support Statism- which has failed to accomplish the supposed reason for its imposition every single time it has been imposed- for thousands of years.
But, statists have never been accused of being rational or consistent. Just "pragmatic" and "normal".
.
Saturday, December 06, 2014
The reason for "speed limits"
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)