I always read Libertarian Money, enjoy their posts, and usually agree with them. I was reading the linked one, though, and just had to disagree.
Is a local government really less intrusive than a national government?
I don't think so.
Washington DC (or even the state capital) is far, far away. They could pass any "laws" they felt like, but without someone "local" to impose those "laws" on me, what power do they have?
Yes, a "law" saying I must mow my lawn in a particular way is actually more oppressive than a federal anti-gun "law", simply because, well, which one is more likely to be enforced against me?
Do you think the feds have enough hired goons to go around and commit acts of enforcement against everyone with a gun they have criminalized? No. Unless you draw attention to yourself in some way they'll probably never notice. But, the code enforcers who will steal from you based upon your lawn; they live near you. They may drive past your house every day. Chances of them not noticing you in some way is practically non-existent.
Even any federal "laws" you get caught breaking will probably be enforced first by the local goons on behalf of the feds.
Personally, I'd rather get rid of the local molesters and then focus on those thousands of miles away- if it's even worth the bother at that point. Because, without the complicity of the local thugs, how do the feds believe they will enforce anything?
Now, maybe a local government would be easier to fight off and win, but only if it couldn't call upon a federal backup gang to protect it from justice, and perhaps that's a good reason to undermine the false legitimacy of a "national government" first- and support secession or whatever cracks the egg. I'm all for breaking up any government into smaller, bitesize pieces, but I don't pretend one is somehow "better" than another. All are founded upon theft and aggression.
.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Authority belongs in our hands
Authority belongs in our hands
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 14, 2014)
When I look at the offices which were up for grabs in the recent election, or hear of the political appointments made to fill other positions, I see a lot of jobs that simply shouldn't exist, much less be filled. Not even with "the right person". It doesn't matter how good a person is when what they are doing shouldn't be done.
We don't argue over who should be placed in charge of human sacrifice to the Aztec gods. Well, most of us don't. So why select representatives or people to fill posts someone, at some point in time, thought necessary? Has history taught us nothing? No one needs an "attorney general", a "district attorney", a representative, a governor, or a president. No one is more qualified to run your life than you are, and no person can ever adequately represent the interests of another, not even on a one-to-one basis. To pretend otherwise diminishes your life.
Even if the job you seek to fill is a legitimate one- a job even a free society would want to hire a person to do- there are better ways to select, and pay, your employee.
If a job is legitimate you'll never need to resort to committing "taxation" to finance it, prohibit people opting out of your service, nor forbid competition (through a legal monopoly) in providing the wanted service.
A judge in a free society, for example, would need to attract customers by delivering a superior service. His judgments would need to be fair and equitable; he would not be able to show himself to be favoring one side in a dispute- as those judges who work for the State inevitably do. This conflict of interest should automatically disqualify the State-employed judges in any case where it is "The State vs" anyone. I would seek better options.
The evil insanity of hiring people to administer the taking of your neighbors' property should be even more obvious. Only by calling such an act "taxation" does it escape the moral outrage it would otherwise elicit.
If your system is so wonderful, prove it by making participation and compliance optional. Otherwise, you are just like any other thug who says "my way or the highway"; like the abusive spouse who says his victim must know they "deserve it" because they don't leave.
Look at how much of your money you could save by abolishing positions harmful to your life, liberty, and property, rather than fighting over who should fill them. Realize how much of your life and liberty you would regain once those positions are eliminated and the authority is placed back in your hands where it belongs.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 14, 2014)
When I look at the offices which were up for grabs in the recent election, or hear of the political appointments made to fill other positions, I see a lot of jobs that simply shouldn't exist, much less be filled. Not even with "the right person". It doesn't matter how good a person is when what they are doing shouldn't be done.
We don't argue over who should be placed in charge of human sacrifice to the Aztec gods. Well, most of us don't. So why select representatives or people to fill posts someone, at some point in time, thought necessary? Has history taught us nothing? No one needs an "attorney general", a "district attorney", a representative, a governor, or a president. No one is more qualified to run your life than you are, and no person can ever adequately represent the interests of another, not even on a one-to-one basis. To pretend otherwise diminishes your life.
Even if the job you seek to fill is a legitimate one- a job even a free society would want to hire a person to do- there are better ways to select, and pay, your employee.
If a job is legitimate you'll never need to resort to committing "taxation" to finance it, prohibit people opting out of your service, nor forbid competition (through a legal monopoly) in providing the wanted service.
A judge in a free society, for example, would need to attract customers by delivering a superior service. His judgments would need to be fair and equitable; he would not be able to show himself to be favoring one side in a dispute- as those judges who work for the State inevitably do. This conflict of interest should automatically disqualify the State-employed judges in any case where it is "The State vs" anyone. I would seek better options.
The evil insanity of hiring people to administer the taking of your neighbors' property should be even more obvious. Only by calling such an act "taxation" does it escape the moral outrage it would otherwise elicit.
If your system is so wonderful, prove it by making participation and compliance optional. Otherwise, you are just like any other thug who says "my way or the highway"; like the abusive spouse who says his victim must know they "deserve it" because they don't leave.
Look at how much of your money you could save by abolishing positions harmful to your life, liberty, and property, rather than fighting over who should fill them. Realize how much of your life and liberty you would regain once those positions are eliminated and the authority is placed back in your hands where it belongs.
.
Fear?
One question that anti-gun bigots love to pose to gun owners is "what are you afraid of?"
Well, I can't answer for anyone else, but as for myself- nothing that owning and carrying a gun could protect me from.
Do I believe a gun "makes me safe"? No, but it is a useful part of the strategy to make myself as safe as I can. There are many situations where having a gun in my control makes me safer than if I didn't- and the only times the opposite might be true is when facing the gang of the State. You'll have to decide for yourself whether freelance thugs or State thugs are the greatest danger, and act accordingly.
.
Well, I can't answer for anyone else, but as for myself- nothing that owning and carrying a gun could protect me from.
Do I believe a gun "makes me safe"? No, but it is a useful part of the strategy to make myself as safe as I can. There are many situations where having a gun in my control makes me safer than if I didn't- and the only times the opposite might be true is when facing the gang of the State. You'll have to decide for yourself whether freelance thugs or State thugs are the greatest danger, and act accordingly.
.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Liberty needs no lies
My second wife told me many times that I should "learn to lie". She was an expert, apparently, and thought it a personal flaw to not be as good at it as she was. Usually I just didn't feel the need. (Although, for my own safety, I eventually learned to hide things from her, which I suppose is a form of lying.)
But I do see how lies might smooth things over. Temporarily.
I won't lie to say I've never lied.
I don't like making people uncomfortable, and will generally try to smooth things over. Even in online discussions I try to not be mean, even when the person is an obvious idiot or troll. I sometimes fail. Stupid human flaws!
My normal in-person tactic, when the truth might be a problem, is to just say nothing- or to try to say the truth in a way that is less painful. This comes up a lot in social situations where people say ridiculous pro-State things that I want to respond to. The truth would cause trouble, so I try to just say nothing. It doesn't come naturally to me. Pointing out their foolishness will probably solve nothing in that case.
Even saying nothing can be troublesome. For those who believe silence is consent, if I say nothing I might find myself in a situation later where I have to speak up or end up doing something I know I shouldn't do. Like stand up and pledge allegiance to a flag or something similar.
Another problem is that some people just can't leave well-enough alone, and keep prying to find out why you aren't saying anything. Or want to know why you just rolled your eyes.
Telling the truth is better and usually easier, even when it hurts people's feelings. "Taxation" is theft. Cops are bad guys. The State is a silly, arbitrary, and harmful mental glitch. Supporting any of those things is a poor decision, based upon self-contradictory errors in thinking. If that hurts your feelings, you need to do some deep thinking and make the decision to go with the truth rather than with what feels nice.
The truth supports liberty in every case I've ever examined. Even in those rare cases where it's not immediately obvious that liberty is better than the alternative, it is only an even trade-off until you add in the simple value of Rightful Liberty- in which case, liberty again rises to the top.
You don't need to lie in support of liberty. If you think you do, just learn a little more and discover what you were missing that makes a lie unnecessary. It's better for everyone that way.
.
But I do see how lies might smooth things over. Temporarily.
I won't lie to say I've never lied.
I don't like making people uncomfortable, and will generally try to smooth things over. Even in online discussions I try to not be mean, even when the person is an obvious idiot or troll. I sometimes fail. Stupid human flaws!
My normal in-person tactic, when the truth might be a problem, is to just say nothing- or to try to say the truth in a way that is less painful. This comes up a lot in social situations where people say ridiculous pro-State things that I want to respond to. The truth would cause trouble, so I try to just say nothing. It doesn't come naturally to me. Pointing out their foolishness will probably solve nothing in that case.
Even saying nothing can be troublesome. For those who believe silence is consent, if I say nothing I might find myself in a situation later where I have to speak up or end up doing something I know I shouldn't do. Like stand up and pledge allegiance to a flag or something similar.
Another problem is that some people just can't leave well-enough alone, and keep prying to find out why you aren't saying anything. Or want to know why you just rolled your eyes.
Telling the truth is better and usually easier, even when it hurts people's feelings. "Taxation" is theft. Cops are bad guys. The State is a silly, arbitrary, and harmful mental glitch. Supporting any of those things is a poor decision, based upon self-contradictory errors in thinking. If that hurts your feelings, you need to do some deep thinking and make the decision to go with the truth rather than with what feels nice.
The truth supports liberty in every case I've ever examined. Even in those rare cases where it's not immediately obvious that liberty is better than the alternative, it is only an even trade-off until you add in the simple value of Rightful Liberty- in which case, liberty again rises to the top.
You don't need to lie in support of liberty. If you think you do, just learn a little more and discover what you were missing that makes a lie unnecessary. It's better for everyone that way.
.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
"I shot a bullet in the air, it came to earth..."
"...right over there"- 41 miles away.
Ammo in Spaaaaaace! OK, so not technically in space- but closer than I've even been.
Well, not technically ammo, either, since it was an inert round.
Kinda a fun thing to watch anyway.
.
Ammo in Spaaaaaace! OK, so not technically in space- but closer than I've even been.
Well, not technically ammo, either, since it was an inert round.
Kinda a fun thing to watch anyway.
.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Wearing dead animals
Back when just about all I wore were buckskin clothes, I used to have animal rights advocates fuss at me from time to time over my buckskin jacket. Possibly only the ones who didn't notice the guns and knives hanging on my belt. For some reason they never seemed to get upset that my pants were also buckskin.
The question was always the same: "How can you wear dead animals?"
My answer evolved into this:
Those who say they believe killing animals is wrong are confused. I can understand believing that killing our closest relatives, like bonobos and other great apes is wrong, even if I don't completely agree (although I don't believe animals have rights, and that the ZAP doesn't cross species lines*). But, let's say for a minute that killing chimps is wrong. Where to draw the line? Apes? Primates? Mammals? Warm blooded animals? Vertebrates? What about wasps or worms?
If it is wrong to kill other animals it shouldn't matter if you are killing them to wear, to eat, by running over them with your vehicle, or by destroying their habitat. After all, they wouldn't care why you were killing them. And if you shouldn't kill other animals, then neither should the other animals kill each other. Humans wouldn't be subject to inconsistent special conditions.
I can understand how religion made such questions easier. After all, if you can just say "Souls." you don't actually need to think about anything deeper.
So, maybe I'm just an animal hater.
I very recently had to have a cat put down. A stray which had adopted me and had lived on my porch for a couple of months- and who suddenly suffered liver failure and possibly other health problems. It completely tore me up inside. I cried, and I have hardly gone outside since. His absence is very painful, as I had gotten used to his friendly companionship every time I went outside. And I actually like many other animals much more than I like cats. I have rescued and raised many injured and orphaned wild animals So, the idea that I don't love animals is absurd. I try to treat them well because I am a decent person, not because they have rights.
*If the ZAP applied to how you should relate to other animals, do you believe they are wrong for not applying it when they encounter each other or individuals of other species? Are they even capable of doing that?
The question was always the same: "How can you wear dead animals?"
My answer evolved into this:
"I know how many vertebrates died for me to make my jacket. Three deer, a pig (for the brains I used to tan the hides), and an elk, which is where the sinew used to sew the jacket came from. (Various numbers of yellow jackets were also crushed when I rung out the wet hides during tanning.)
"How many animals died due to the farming or manufacture, and transportation, of your cotton, nylon, or hemp clothing? Habitat loss, agricultural chemicals, the trucks and factories and fuel all took a toll on animals. Both of us wear clothes that resulted in death. At least I own it."
Those who say they believe killing animals is wrong are confused. I can understand believing that killing our closest relatives, like bonobos and other great apes is wrong, even if I don't completely agree (although I don't believe animals have rights, and that the ZAP doesn't cross species lines*). But, let's say for a minute that killing chimps is wrong. Where to draw the line? Apes? Primates? Mammals? Warm blooded animals? Vertebrates? What about wasps or worms?
If it is wrong to kill other animals it shouldn't matter if you are killing them to wear, to eat, by running over them with your vehicle, or by destroying their habitat. After all, they wouldn't care why you were killing them. And if you shouldn't kill other animals, then neither should the other animals kill each other. Humans wouldn't be subject to inconsistent special conditions.
I can understand how religion made such questions easier. After all, if you can just say "Souls." you don't actually need to think about anything deeper.
So, maybe I'm just an animal hater.
I very recently had to have a cat put down. A stray which had adopted me and had lived on my porch for a couple of months- and who suddenly suffered liver failure and possibly other health problems. It completely tore me up inside. I cried, and I have hardly gone outside since. His absence is very painful, as I had gotten used to his friendly companionship every time I went outside. And I actually like many other animals much more than I like cats. I have rescued and raised many injured and orphaned wild animals So, the idea that I don't love animals is absurd. I try to treat them well because I am a decent person, not because they have rights.
-
*If the ZAP applied to how you should relate to other animals, do you believe they are wrong for not applying it when they encounter each other or individuals of other species? Are they even capable of doing that?
Thursday, December 11, 2014
The "true cost" of "police reform"
(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.
.
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.
.
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!
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)