Every time some astroturf group of shrill, whiny women who fear Rightful Liberty and want Daddy State to save them from having to act like adults, take on a new target, they brand themselves as "Moms" or "Mothers"
Well, in that spirit I suggest that in those instances, "Moms" stands for "Mouth Open, Mind Shuttered".
Individually, "Mom" could mean:
"Mildly Obnoxious Moron"
"Moron On [a] Mission"
Thinking of them in this more honest and accurate way is better for my peace of mind.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Apologies and explanations
You may not have noticed- especially since I had a couple of entries already set to post- but I was in the hospital for a few days. It was unexpected. So, no Clovis News Journal column this week.
I have a few things almost ready to publish, so I may not miss more days, but give me a little while to get back up to speed.
It began with a trip to the emergency room at about 3:30 am Monday, after a couple hours of writhing on the floor. It was nothing too serious- just a kidney stone (4mm x 6mm), and it actually is still there. More doc visits in the coming days.
If I seem a little out of it in my posts (or comments or replies) for a few days I'll blame the pain meds.
.
I have a few things almost ready to publish, so I may not miss more days, but give me a little while to get back up to speed.
It began with a trip to the emergency room at about 3:30 am Monday, after a couple hours of writhing on the floor. It was nothing too serious- just a kidney stone (4mm x 6mm), and it actually is still there. More doc visits in the coming days.
If I seem a little out of it in my posts (or comments or replies) for a few days I'll blame the pain meds.
.
"Right to control" a powerful delusion
"Right to control" a powerful delusion
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 16, 2015)
Almost all areas of political contention are invented and imaginary. Those areas of life shouldn't be subjected to laws, majority opinion, or anyone's control.
There are only two things subject to control: aggression and violations of private property. Those don't need any response beyond self defense. No one needs to give you permission to protect yourself and your property, and no one can take away your right to self defense.
Beyond that, just look at all the areas which have been perverted by politics:
There is no such thing as "illegal immigration"- there is only trespassing on private property or not, and where a person was born or what government papers they hold has no bearing on the matter.
There is no right to tell others what they can ingest, inject, smoke, buy or sell- and that includes the size of soft drinks or the fat content of food.
There is no right for the State to ration or regulate marriage. The State can record the marriage if the participants want, but there its involvement must end.
There is no right to forbid the ownership or carrying of weapons, what weapons someone chooses to carry, where they carry them with property owner permission, nor how those weapons are carried.
There is no right to control how someone uses their own property, nor whether they run a business.
There is no right to force people to buy any product or service, such as health insurance.
There is no right to require permits or licenses, nor to charge the associated fees.
Where there is no right, no authority can exist. You can't delegate authority for something you have no right to do as an individual.
There is not even any such thing as taxation- there is either respect for private property, or the opposite: theft. There is no right to be provided things, services, or a salary financed by taking money from others.
To pretend you- or some imaginary "we"- have the right to dictate to others how they can live their lives is the source of the vast majority of political strife. To pretend the authority exists to decide what percentage of other people's property can be taken for "the common good" causes almost all the rest.
It's a powerful delusion, perpetuated through most of recorded history, over most of the planet's populated surface. It's still wrong.
There is almost nothing in life legitimately subject to a vote or any other form of imposed control. Anytime a vote is taken, unless you allow the losing side to opt out- without penalty- your vote is a sham. Imposing the results is aggression or theft and makes you the problem.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 16, 2015)
Almost all areas of political contention are invented and imaginary. Those areas of life shouldn't be subjected to laws, majority opinion, or anyone's control.
There are only two things subject to control: aggression and violations of private property. Those don't need any response beyond self defense. No one needs to give you permission to protect yourself and your property, and no one can take away your right to self defense.
Beyond that, just look at all the areas which have been perverted by politics:
There is no such thing as "illegal immigration"- there is only trespassing on private property or not, and where a person was born or what government papers they hold has no bearing on the matter.
There is no right to tell others what they can ingest, inject, smoke, buy or sell- and that includes the size of soft drinks or the fat content of food.
There is no right for the State to ration or regulate marriage. The State can record the marriage if the participants want, but there its involvement must end.
There is no right to forbid the ownership or carrying of weapons, what weapons someone chooses to carry, where they carry them with property owner permission, nor how those weapons are carried.
There is no right to control how someone uses their own property, nor whether they run a business.
There is no right to force people to buy any product or service, such as health insurance.
There is no right to require permits or licenses, nor to charge the associated fees.
Where there is no right, no authority can exist. You can't delegate authority for something you have no right to do as an individual.
There is not even any such thing as taxation- there is either respect for private property, or the opposite: theft. There is no right to be provided things, services, or a salary financed by taking money from others.
To pretend you- or some imaginary "we"- have the right to dictate to others how they can live their lives is the source of the vast majority of political strife. To pretend the authority exists to decide what percentage of other people's property can be taken for "the common good" causes almost all the rest.
It's a powerful delusion, perpetuated through most of recorded history, over most of the planet's populated surface. It's still wrong.
There is almost nothing in life legitimately subject to a vote or any other form of imposed control. Anytime a vote is taken, unless you allow the losing side to opt out- without penalty- your vote is a sham. Imposing the results is aggression or theft and makes you the problem.
.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Open carry vs concealed carry
Here's why I prefer open carry- or at least why I wish coproaches wouldn't murder me for open carrying here in the "surprisingly" anti-gun state of Texas:
Concealed carry is uncomfortable. I have never been able to find a CC holster that is the slightest bit comfortable- and by that I mean one which doesn't actually constantly hurt. I have tried several styles and even created my own. They all suck- with the cheapest actually sucking slightly less. I have adopted unconventional methods for the time being, but am always adjusting and experimenting.
When I lived in more free areas I open carried most of the time. I would still CC when the situation called for it (often doing both), but having options is always better.
I understand the tactical advantage CC gives me. I also understand the deterrent effect of seeing lots of people OCing all around you.
But I like wearing a holster on my hip. It just feels right- natural. And I have a lot more options of what to carry that way, too. As I say, I like options. If I ever could find a CC system/holster that doesn't cause agony I'd like that in the meantime.
This means one of the few "political" issues I tend to follow is that of Texas puppeticians considering the possibility of ending their criminal behavior and re-legalizing open carry.
Constitutional carry is a good start, Diplomatic Carry is better. After all, you and I are in foreign, enemy territory here at home.
If you have found a CC system you like, and that doesn't hurt, let me know. If it is something I haven't tried yet (and I can afford the holster) I'll give it a try. And I realize part of my problem may be the large size of my CC weapon.
.
Concealed carry is uncomfortable. I have never been able to find a CC holster that is the slightest bit comfortable- and by that I mean one which doesn't actually constantly hurt. I have tried several styles and even created my own. They all suck- with the cheapest actually sucking slightly less. I have adopted unconventional methods for the time being, but am always adjusting and experimenting.
When I lived in more free areas I open carried most of the time. I would still CC when the situation called for it (often doing both), but having options is always better.
I understand the tactical advantage CC gives me. I also understand the deterrent effect of seeing lots of people OCing all around you.
But I like wearing a holster on my hip. It just feels right- natural. And I have a lot more options of what to carry that way, too. As I say, I like options. If I ever could find a CC system/holster that doesn't cause agony I'd like that in the meantime.
This means one of the few "political" issues I tend to follow is that of Texas puppeticians considering the possibility of ending their criminal behavior and re-legalizing open carry.
Constitutional carry is a good start, Diplomatic Carry is better. After all, you and I are in foreign, enemy territory here at home.
If you have found a CC system you like, and that doesn't hurt, let me know. If it is something I haven't tried yet (and I can afford the holster) I'll give it a try. And I realize part of my problem may be the large size of my CC weapon.
.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Voting is bad, Mmm-kay?
Elections are to choosing as rape is to sex.
It's not that I oppose voting- it's that I oppose voting on the things elections put to a vote.
There is almost nothing in life that is legitimately subject to a vote- and your Rightful Liberty is NEVER one of those things.
.
It's not that I oppose voting- it's that I oppose voting on the things elections put to a vote.
There is almost nothing in life that is legitimately subject to a vote- and your Rightful Liberty is NEVER one of those things.
.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
More "science": cosmological speculation- the expanding Universe
My last cosmological idea was pretty quickly shown (with the proper search) to be an idea others have already had years ago. I hate when that happens (but it usually does, since an original thought which has never been thought before is probably extremely rare). I expect the same from this one, but I'll post it before I research it.
Red shift shows the expansion of the Universe. Unless such ideas as "tired light" have any validity (which seems highly doubtful to me) every point in the Universe (beyond local gravitational "groups") seems to be moving away from every other point. And, the farther away two points are from each other the faster they are moving apart.
This can be viewed like raisins in a rising loaf of bread- as the whole loaf expands, each raisin gets farther from all other raisins, but the effect is greatest (taking into account the rigid nature of the bread pan) for a raisin touching the bottom of the pan and one poking out the top of the loaf. Two adjacent raisins might not move apart noticeably, and if two are stuck together- like galaxies gravitationally bound together- the expansion won't affect their relative positioning at all.
You can read up on it to see how this shifts absorption lines toward the red end of the spectrum, if you care to learn more.
Back to the expanding Universe... Run this measurable expansion backwards and you reach a time about 13.8 billion years ago to see when the entire Universe would have occupied a single point. The "explosion" of this point is what is called the Big Bang and causes all sorts of speculation about what might have caused it. Lots of ideas- some plausible- but none confirmed or even universally accepted (and I mean by scientists who study such things, not Creationists).
But, maybe there's another answer that would explain the observations. Could the Universe be always expanding, but not actually getting larger? Might this do away with the need of "What made it Bang?"
Maybe, sorta.
Spacetime is curved- and this has been experimentally observed many times. This means the shortest distance between two points, on a cosmological scale, is a curve. And here I am speaking of a spacetime (4-dimensional) curve, not a 2- or 3- dimensional curve of the sort you can probably picture in your head. If the Universe is curved enough (which it doesn't seem to be), going in a straight line far enough would bring you back to the place you began.
So, here's my thought: What if the red shift actually does show the Universe/spacetime to be expanding, but the curvature of spacetime is always bringing the "outer" edge back to the "center"?
A lower-dimensional visual aid would be a fountain where the water flowing out the top is sucked in at the bottom to be sent back out the top again- ad infinitum. Well, try to visualize the Universe as a 4-dimensional fountain.
It would solve the problem of "what happened before the beginning" ("What is north of the North Pole?"), and put to rest the problem of what made it all begin.
It should one day be possible to test this hypothesis, since it is falsifiable. For that matter, it may have already been falsified.
.
Red shift shows the expansion of the Universe. Unless such ideas as "tired light" have any validity (which seems highly doubtful to me) every point in the Universe (beyond local gravitational "groups") seems to be moving away from every other point. And, the farther away two points are from each other the faster they are moving apart.
This can be viewed like raisins in a rising loaf of bread- as the whole loaf expands, each raisin gets farther from all other raisins, but the effect is greatest (taking into account the rigid nature of the bread pan) for a raisin touching the bottom of the pan and one poking out the top of the loaf. Two adjacent raisins might not move apart noticeably, and if two are stuck together- like galaxies gravitationally bound together- the expansion won't affect their relative positioning at all.
You can read up on it to see how this shifts absorption lines toward the red end of the spectrum, if you care to learn more.
Back to the expanding Universe... Run this measurable expansion backwards and you reach a time about 13.8 billion years ago to see when the entire Universe would have occupied a single point. The "explosion" of this point is what is called the Big Bang and causes all sorts of speculation about what might have caused it. Lots of ideas- some plausible- but none confirmed or even universally accepted (and I mean by scientists who study such things, not Creationists).
But, maybe there's another answer that would explain the observations. Could the Universe be always expanding, but not actually getting larger? Might this do away with the need of "What made it Bang?"
Maybe, sorta.
Spacetime is curved- and this has been experimentally observed many times. This means the shortest distance between two points, on a cosmological scale, is a curve. And here I am speaking of a spacetime (4-dimensional) curve, not a 2- or 3- dimensional curve of the sort you can probably picture in your head. If the Universe is curved enough (which it doesn't seem to be), going in a straight line far enough would bring you back to the place you began.
So, here's my thought: What if the red shift actually does show the Universe/spacetime to be expanding, but the curvature of spacetime is always bringing the "outer" edge back to the "center"?
A lower-dimensional visual aid would be a fountain where the water flowing out the top is sucked in at the bottom to be sent back out the top again- ad infinitum. Well, try to visualize the Universe as a 4-dimensional fountain.
It would solve the problem of "what happened before the beginning" ("What is north of the North Pole?"), and put to rest the problem of what made it all begin.
It should one day be possible to test this hypothesis, since it is falsifiable. For that matter, it may have already been falsified.
.
The honest results of government
Government regularly delivers the opposite of what it promises. That's just the nature of the thing.
When people say "safety would be compromised" by getting rid of the goons of the DHS, point out that DHS makes America (meaning you and me, if we are assumed to be "Americans") less safe. Because it honestly does.
Government schooling destroys education.
Government roads impair travel.
Government's anti-gun "laws" put you in danger and help the aggressive thugs.
And so on.
You could rightly respond to statist propaganda with shocked exclamations like these:
It is more consistent and makes a lot more sense than the ridiculous claims made by statists.
.
When people say "safety would be compromised" by getting rid of the goons of the DHS, point out that DHS makes America (meaning you and me, if we are assumed to be "Americans") less safe. Because it honestly does.
Government schooling destroys education.
Government roads impair travel.
Government's anti-gun "laws" put you in danger and help the aggressive thugs.
And so on.
You could rightly respond to statist propaganda with shocked exclamations like these:
"You support the military? What, you don't care about our freedom? You hate America?"
"You support anti-gun 'laws'? You want everyone to be murdered?"
"You don't want to abolish public schools? Don't you value education?!"
It is more consistent and makes a lot more sense than the ridiculous claims made by statists.
.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
States against one of their own kind
(Previously posted to Patreon and shared with subscribers)
The problem other States have with the Islamic State isn't really the evil behavior its followers display. It's that they are breaking the rules of "civilized war" openly.
They have violated the rules the other massive murder engines called "nations" have agreed to follow when they participate in that State ritual called "war".
They openly use their superstitions as justification and motivation for killing, rather than hiding the superstitious nature of why they do what they do.
They murder their targets "hands on", up close in front of cameras, instead of at a distance, behind cover. It's not polite to display your murders so openly.
They behead and burn instead of bomb and shoot.
Evil is evil, and the Islamic State is evil because it is a State and also because it is Islamic. But to somehow conclude it is worse than other States, because it is open about what States are and what they do, is ridiculous.
.
The problem other States have with the Islamic State isn't really the evil behavior its followers display. It's that they are breaking the rules of "civilized war" openly.
They have violated the rules the other massive murder engines called "nations" have agreed to follow when they participate in that State ritual called "war".
They openly use their superstitions as justification and motivation for killing, rather than hiding the superstitious nature of why they do what they do.
They murder their targets "hands on", up close in front of cameras, instead of at a distance, behind cover. It's not polite to display your murders so openly.
They behead and burn instead of bomb and shoot.
Evil is evil, and the Islamic State is evil because it is a State and also because it is Islamic. But to somehow conclude it is worse than other States, because it is open about what States are and what they do, is ridiculous.
.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Whiny badgefluffers
Cops- they are just like any other thieves and molesters, except for how exceptionally whiny their fans are.
Don't let them occupy your life and mind any more than the other thieves and molesters do. They are out there. Try to avoid them when you can, but don't structure your life around their existence or avoiding them.
.
Don't let them occupy your life and mind any more than the other thieves and molesters do. They are out there. Try to avoid them when you can, but don't structure your life around their existence or avoiding them.
.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Islam would only be an issue in one part of the globe....
I was waiting to see if anyone brought up a point I made in the most recent "Liberty Lines", but I guess no one will (unless someone does in the paper).
The part I'm talking about: "Islam wouldn't be spreading so much and wouldn't be an issue outside that one part of the globe."
What? Am I saying a problem doesn't matter if it only affects one place?
Not at all.
The people affected have every right to fight back. They have a right to ask for support. You have an individual right to go try to help. You don't have a right to force me or anyone else to pay your way. You don't have a right to kill non-aggressors based on where they live or what you believe they might be thinking or planning.
If you want to go there to defend the residents who are being violated by Islam and Muslims, go ahead. Pay your own way, don't say you are doing it on my behalf, and live with the consequences. If you get blown up, shot, beheaded, or burned to death it is a foreseeable outcome. You should recognize that when you go.
.
The part I'm talking about: "Islam wouldn't be spreading so much and wouldn't be an issue outside that one part of the globe."
What? Am I saying a problem doesn't matter if it only affects one place?
Not at all.
The people affected have every right to fight back. They have a right to ask for support. You have an individual right to go try to help. You don't have a right to force me or anyone else to pay your way. You don't have a right to kill non-aggressors based on where they live or what you believe they might be thinking or planning.
If you want to go there to defend the residents who are being violated by Islam and Muslims, go ahead. Pay your own way, don't say you are doing it on my behalf, and live with the consequences. If you get blown up, shot, beheaded, or burned to death it is a foreseeable outcome. You should recognize that when you go.
.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Push through the pain for liberty
Push through the pain for liberty
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 9, 2015)
There is a balance to life. I love when my son comes to visit, even though it means I'll feel sadness when he has to head home again. The joy of his presence is worth the pain of his departure.
All of life is a trade-off like this. Don't allow your desire to avoid pain or sadness rob you of opportunities for joy.
A free society would also bring some pain, but just like a short visit from a loved one, the pain would be worth the gains. To enjoy the benefits of liberty you have to take the initiative to push through the pain. It won't be as bad as you have built it up to be in your imagination.
You might miss your secure government job, until you realize having more options brings more real security in the long run. And more wealth.
You might miss your entitlements and those government benefits you believe you have earned, until you realize how insignificant and inadequate those are compared to what you could provide for yourself without the barriers erected all around you "for your own good".
You might feel insecure without tax-financed protection rackets, until you discover how those actually propped up the very things you feared, and how much better you can provide for your own protection when self-defense is no longer criminalized. No one is as motivated to protect you and your property as you are; hired protection can always be bought off and will always have divided loyalties- at best. That's natural. It's a poor substitute for taking responsibility for your own safety.
Liberty would require some adjustments and they wouldn't be instant or without discomfort.
Any temporary discomfort caused by the loss of your chains would be quickly overshadowed by the opportunities liberty presents. Don't let the fear or pain hold you back. That's like refusing to let your son come visit because you don't want to be sad when the time comes for him to leave.
Thomas Jefferson observed: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." What has happened to 21st Century Americans to make us so frightened of "what ifs" and imagined inconveniences that we flee from precious liberty and trade it for false security? As Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." And, I'll add, they'll have neither.
Be up to the challenge. Push through any pain to get to the good things on the other side. Deserve liberty and take it. It's up to you.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 9, 2015)
There is a balance to life. I love when my son comes to visit, even though it means I'll feel sadness when he has to head home again. The joy of his presence is worth the pain of his departure.
All of life is a trade-off like this. Don't allow your desire to avoid pain or sadness rob you of opportunities for joy.
A free society would also bring some pain, but just like a short visit from a loved one, the pain would be worth the gains. To enjoy the benefits of liberty you have to take the initiative to push through the pain. It won't be as bad as you have built it up to be in your imagination.
You might miss your secure government job, until you realize having more options brings more real security in the long run. And more wealth.
You might miss your entitlements and those government benefits you believe you have earned, until you realize how insignificant and inadequate those are compared to what you could provide for yourself without the barriers erected all around you "for your own good".
You might feel insecure without tax-financed protection rackets, until you discover how those actually propped up the very things you feared, and how much better you can provide for your own protection when self-defense is no longer criminalized. No one is as motivated to protect you and your property as you are; hired protection can always be bought off and will always have divided loyalties- at best. That's natural. It's a poor substitute for taking responsibility for your own safety.
Liberty would require some adjustments and they wouldn't be instant or without discomfort.
Any temporary discomfort caused by the loss of your chains would be quickly overshadowed by the opportunities liberty presents. Don't let the fear or pain hold you back. That's like refusing to let your son come visit because you don't want to be sad when the time comes for him to leave.
Thomas Jefferson observed: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." What has happened to 21st Century Americans to make us so frightened of "what ifs" and imagined inconveniences that we flee from precious liberty and trade it for false security? As Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." And, I'll add, they'll have neither.
Be up to the challenge. Push through any pain to get to the good things on the other side. Deserve liberty and take it. It's up to you.
.
"Get a real job"
Government bureaucrats, puppeticians, and enforcers are happy to see people with a job- as long as they do it the government-approved way. Go to college, go in debt, get a job where taxes can be easily calculated and confiscated. Then get licensed, get your permits, pay your fees, obey the zoning "laws" and codes.
What those government goons don't like is if you make money some other way.
If you don't fit the mold you are marginalized. Suspected. You might just be thinking too much- or too well. You are not helping prop up the silly notion of how helpful and useful The State is. You might not be "contributing your fair share"- through "taxation"- to the selfless thugs in the "public sector".
I've witnessed this phenomenon my entire life- and it has only gotten worse over time.
So, if you want to be appreciated by society, do it the normal way. Even better, get a government "job".
But if you'd rather be an actual good and productive person, take the other path. Funny, either path can lead to you performing the same tasks for your money, but the second path will probably make an ethical person feel better about themselves than the other would.
.
What those government goons don't like is if you make money some other way.
If you don't fit the mold you are marginalized. Suspected. You might just be thinking too much- or too well. You are not helping prop up the silly notion of how helpful and useful The State is. You might not be "contributing your fair share"- through "taxation"- to the selfless thugs in the "public sector".
I've witnessed this phenomenon my entire life- and it has only gotten worse over time.
So, if you want to be appreciated by society, do it the normal way. Even better, get a government "job".
But if you'd rather be an actual good and productive person, take the other path. Funny, either path can lead to you performing the same tasks for your money, but the second path will probably make an ethical person feel better about themselves than the other would.
.
Monday, February 09, 2015
"Resisting arrest"
(Previously posted to Patreon)
The fake "crime" of "resisting arrest" is in the news because of the Don of Police in NYC wanting to make it a "felony" rather than a lesser "offense".
This is just one example why I don't want "laws" forbidding "felons" from owning guns. Too many silly "laws" have been dreamed up to make completely ethical acts "felonies".
Resisting arrest is your right. Even if you actually did something wrong. Nothing can change that.
The reality is that "resisting arrest" is usually used against people the molesting cop KNOWS didn't actually do anything wrong, to have an excuse to punish him anyway. To show him he should have simply complied with the evil (and illegal) demands of the cop.
Copsuckers normally claim you should just allow yourself to be kidnapped, and then sort it all out in court. That's as stupid as saying you should allow yourself to be raped and then take the rapist to court- a court run by rapists just like him, who are members of the same gang as your rapist.
You have an absolute human right to resist a kidnapping- even if it is called "arrest". You have the absolute human right to kill your kidnapper if he doesn't stop his attempt.
I admit, once the cop decides to molest you, you have lost. You are not coming out undamaged. No one can tell you how to act at that point. You have to decide for yourself whether you want to put yourself under the power of someone you know is a dangerous threat, so he can deliver you to his gang, or whether you want to get it over with and die on your feet while resisting his molestation.
Either way, I will remember that the cop is the true bad guy- the enemy of Rightful Liberty- even if you are also at fault.
.
The fake "crime" of "resisting arrest" is in the news because of the Don of Police in NYC wanting to make it a "felony" rather than a lesser "offense".
This is just one example why I don't want "laws" forbidding "felons" from owning guns. Too many silly "laws" have been dreamed up to make completely ethical acts "felonies".
Resisting arrest is your right. Even if you actually did something wrong. Nothing can change that.
The reality is that "resisting arrest" is usually used against people the molesting cop KNOWS didn't actually do anything wrong, to have an excuse to punish him anyway. To show him he should have simply complied with the evil (and illegal) demands of the cop.
Copsuckers normally claim you should just allow yourself to be kidnapped, and then sort it all out in court. That's as stupid as saying you should allow yourself to be raped and then take the rapist to court- a court run by rapists just like him, who are members of the same gang as your rapist.
You have an absolute human right to resist a kidnapping- even if it is called "arrest". You have the absolute human right to kill your kidnapper if he doesn't stop his attempt.
I admit, once the cop decides to molest you, you have lost. You are not coming out undamaged. No one can tell you how to act at that point. You have to decide for yourself whether you want to put yourself under the power of someone you know is a dangerous threat, so he can deliver you to his gang, or whether you want to get it over with and die on your feet while resisting his molestation.
Either way, I will remember that the cop is the true bad guy- the enemy of Rightful Liberty- even if you are also at fault.
.
Is "society" a real thing?
I believe it is, but maybe not the way the term is often used.
I see "society" as a useful term for describing a large system made up of the aggregate action of many interacting, individual parts. An emergent property.
Sort of the way "weather" is. Or "The market".
If a raindrop hits you, you might not say it is "raining" if that was the only drop. And, even if it is raining, not every potential raindrop will fall.
A "society" isn't guilty just because one individual is guilty. If "everyone" is guilty, you can still find individuals who are not.
It's why I still use the word "society" in some contexts. It doesn't replace individuals, but it can describe the general weather. The "system" that results from the actions of each individual part.
.
I see "society" as a useful term for describing a large system made up of the aggregate action of many interacting, individual parts. An emergent property.
Sort of the way "weather" is. Or "The market".
If a raindrop hits you, you might not say it is "raining" if that was the only drop. And, even if it is raining, not every potential raindrop will fall.
A "society" isn't guilty just because one individual is guilty. If "everyone" is guilty, you can still find individuals who are not.
It's why I still use the word "society" in some contexts. It doesn't replace individuals, but it can describe the general weather. The "system" that results from the actions of each individual part.
.
Sunday, February 08, 2015
Abdul, the sniper
Things have gone badly for the people living in Alternate America.
The bombing of the Middle Eastern country's nuclear plant by rogue "democracy" extremists from Canada was blamed on America, or at least taken out on Americans because the US government "supports" Canada- by which I suppose they mean the two governments are not at war with each other.
Armies from several Middle East countries have invaded the cities and towns of America, destroying the infrastructure and fouling the water supply and electrical grid beyond repair.
The invaders show how compassionate they are by rescuing the orphans and injured their actions have created; treating them in hospitals, and giving them some bottled water and dolls. The people back home lap it up, but Americans see the propaganda for what it is.
Americans are fighting back in every way they can manage- sabotage, becoming more radical about their American beliefs, spying, and recruiting fighters... and for those willing to kill- personal firearms for most; garage-made bombs for the so-inclined. Everyone agrees: extreme threats require extreme measures.
A guy named Abdul is hiding on a roof top in Wichita, using a scoped rifle to shoot people he believes are intending to kill other members of his army of invaders. If the person in his scope looks American- in other words, if the person obviously isn't one of his guys- and is armed, he shoots. Man, woman, child- it makes no difference. After all, he tell himself, these dogs deserve it because they are all the same, and they want to kill him and his guys.
This goes on for years.
After a great many kills, but fewer than he'll claim, Abdul goes home.
Abdul is proud of his service, and brags that killing terrorists was the most fun he's ever had. He'd love to go back and do it again. He is praised as a hero, and the notion that he saved his country is pushed by all good patriots. If it weren't for him, they would all be speaking English and living under Christian Law, and "democracy". Shudder!!
Abdul is a serial murderer. Abdul claims he was killing terrorists, but he was the true terrorist. Sure, doing what he did took courage. Cowards don't go into someone else's house, knowing the resident is armed and willing to defend his life and property. But, bravery is irrelevant in this case. His actions were still evil.
Reversing the roles changes nothing.
Added: Also published on LewRockwell.com, 2-10-2015
.
The bombing of the Middle Eastern country's nuclear plant by rogue "democracy" extremists from Canada was blamed on America, or at least taken out on Americans because the US government "supports" Canada- by which I suppose they mean the two governments are not at war with each other.
Armies from several Middle East countries have invaded the cities and towns of America, destroying the infrastructure and fouling the water supply and electrical grid beyond repair.
The invaders show how compassionate they are by rescuing the orphans and injured their actions have created; treating them in hospitals, and giving them some bottled water and dolls. The people back home lap it up, but Americans see the propaganda for what it is.
Americans are fighting back in every way they can manage- sabotage, becoming more radical about their American beliefs, spying, and recruiting fighters... and for those willing to kill- personal firearms for most; garage-made bombs for the so-inclined. Everyone agrees: extreme threats require extreme measures.
A guy named Abdul is hiding on a roof top in Wichita, using a scoped rifle to shoot people he believes are intending to kill other members of his army of invaders. If the person in his scope looks American- in other words, if the person obviously isn't one of his guys- and is armed, he shoots. Man, woman, child- it makes no difference. After all, he tell himself, these dogs deserve it because they are all the same, and they want to kill him and his guys.
This goes on for years.
After a great many kills, but fewer than he'll claim, Abdul goes home.
Abdul is proud of his service, and brags that killing terrorists was the most fun he's ever had. He'd love to go back and do it again. He is praised as a hero, and the notion that he saved his country is pushed by all good patriots. If it weren't for him, they would all be speaking English and living under Christian Law, and "democracy". Shudder!!
Abdul is a serial murderer. Abdul claims he was killing terrorists, but he was the true terrorist. Sure, doing what he did took courage. Cowards don't go into someone else's house, knowing the resident is armed and willing to defend his life and property. But, bravery is irrelevant in this case. His actions were still evil.
Reversing the roles changes nothing.
-
Added: Also published on LewRockwell.com, 2-10-2015
.
Saturday, February 07, 2015
Embrace the degradation?
I really pity anyone who could lower themselves enough to become a cop.
I have also observed that those who are the most degraded are often the most haughty. It doesn't make sense, but it is what it is.
Even more bizarre is how many rabid ("statid") supporters those degraded thugs have- and just how devoted they are to defending the indefensible actions of the cops they support.
The clear fact that there are no good cops, by definition, won't change their minds, because it isn't about facts. It is about feelings- a sort of religion.
I have also observed that those who are the most degraded are often the most haughty. It doesn't make sense, but it is what it is.
Even more bizarre is how many rabid ("statid") supporters those degraded thugs have- and just how devoted they are to defending the indefensible actions of the cops they support.
The clear fact that there are no good cops, by definition, won't change their minds, because it isn't about facts. It is about feelings- a sort of religion.
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Liberty Lines follow-up
Thinking about possible reactions and objections to my Liberty Lines column, which I wasn't able to address in the paper due to space limitations:
Maybe "convert or die" is a winning strategy. People could say that history shows the "convert or die" methods of the New World's newcomers was pretty effective. The indigenous peoples did "convert or die"- and a lot died even after converting.
Perhaps Muslims could also defeat the rest of the world in the same way.
Indigenous Americans lost due to the invaders' superior weapons and because of imported disease. Both a result, in large part, of a lack of science in the New World culture.
Muslims attacking America is like what would have happened if indigenous Americans had tried to raid Spain. The results would have probably been much the same as happened.
Remember, Islam claims earthquakes are due to female immodesty. Not a culture with a firm grasp on how things actually are. Yes, there was a time long ago when Islam was the scientific leader of the world; when Muslims invented algebra and were the advocates of science.
That time is not now.
Imported diseases aren't going to be much of a threat- not an extinction-level threat by any means. We have modern medicine and understand basic hygiene. They don't have superior weapons or technology. All they have going for them is religious fervor and a willingness to kill and die. Yes, that can be very dangerous to individuals who get in the way, but not to the "culture" as a whole. Unless you would just roll over and submit. I won't do that, will you? I didn't think so.
Maybe you'd better get in the habit of refusing to submit to aggressive extremists now. For practice.
.
Maybe "convert or die" is a winning strategy. People could say that history shows the "convert or die" methods of the New World's newcomers was pretty effective. The indigenous peoples did "convert or die"- and a lot died even after converting.
Perhaps Muslims could also defeat the rest of the world in the same way.
Indigenous Americans lost due to the invaders' superior weapons and because of imported disease. Both a result, in large part, of a lack of science in the New World culture.
Muslims attacking America is like what would have happened if indigenous Americans had tried to raid Spain. The results would have probably been much the same as happened.
Remember, Islam claims earthquakes are due to female immodesty. Not a culture with a firm grasp on how things actually are. Yes, there was a time long ago when Islam was the scientific leader of the world; when Muslims invented algebra and were the advocates of science.
That time is not now.
Imported diseases aren't going to be much of a threat- not an extinction-level threat by any means. We have modern medicine and understand basic hygiene. They don't have superior weapons or technology. All they have going for them is religious fervor and a willingness to kill and die. Yes, that can be very dangerous to individuals who get in the way, but not to the "culture" as a whole. Unless you would just roll over and submit. I won't do that, will you? I didn't think so.
Maybe you'd better get in the habit of refusing to submit to aggressive extremists now. For practice.
.
Liberty Lines Feb 5, 2015
(Published in the Farwell TX/Texico NM, State Line Tribune- Feb. 5, 2015)
I have some good news that you may not like hearing: Islam won't take over the world. Its fanatical adherents would like to; they just can't. Not without some civilization-ending catastrophe to pave the way- such as a major asteroid strike, a plague wiping out most of humanity, or some other "science fiction" scenario. Sure, those things could happen, but they're not likely, and not something you can control, so you shouldn't obsess over it. Besides, at that point Islam would be the least of your worries.
Still, it is completely self-defeating to support policies which empower the fundamentalist Muslims- such as the modern secular Crusade led by the US government. This does nothing but recruit more to their cause, and give them more reasons to emigrate from the war-torn region.
It's like kicking a hornet nest and being surprised at the results. But these are humans we are talking about. You can't annihilate the entire nest without killing more innocent people than guilty ones. That would be just as evil as what the aggressive Muslim fundamentalists are doing.
If it weren't for the US government constantly going to the Middle East (with money stolen from you, to the cheers of fans of never-ending war) and repeatedly poking Islam with a sharp stick- giving it energy, motivation, and justification with each poke- Islam wouldn't be spreading so much and wouldn't be an issue outside that one part of the globe.
I realize Islam has a nasty "convert or die" outlook. This is the Islamic year 1436; their 15th Century. You wouldn't happen to remember what was happening in the New World beginning in the Christian 15th Century and beyond, would you? Does the word "Conquistador" ring any bells? How about Pizarro? "Manifest Destiny"?
"Convert or die" is always wrong, always barbaric, but it isn't exclusively Muslim.
The only real danger is the danger which always lies in politics. Until people get over the sick idea that it's OK to govern others, and that a majority can vote their will on a minority "for their own good", there is always a risk that someone will outvote you and impose their silly or destructive rules to govern you in a way which violates your Rightful Liberty, and which you object to. Nothing can make that right. It's long past time to stop repeating this destructive pattern.
(Also, check out the next post for a little follow-up I didn't have room to put in the paper.)
I have some good news that you may not like hearing: Islam won't take over the world. Its fanatical adherents would like to; they just can't. Not without some civilization-ending catastrophe to pave the way- such as a major asteroid strike, a plague wiping out most of humanity, or some other "science fiction" scenario. Sure, those things could happen, but they're not likely, and not something you can control, so you shouldn't obsess over it. Besides, at that point Islam would be the least of your worries.
Still, it is completely self-defeating to support policies which empower the fundamentalist Muslims- such as the modern secular Crusade led by the US government. This does nothing but recruit more to their cause, and give them more reasons to emigrate from the war-torn region.
It's like kicking a hornet nest and being surprised at the results. But these are humans we are talking about. You can't annihilate the entire nest without killing more innocent people than guilty ones. That would be just as evil as what the aggressive Muslim fundamentalists are doing.
If it weren't for the US government constantly going to the Middle East (with money stolen from you, to the cheers of fans of never-ending war) and repeatedly poking Islam with a sharp stick- giving it energy, motivation, and justification with each poke- Islam wouldn't be spreading so much and wouldn't be an issue outside that one part of the globe.
I realize Islam has a nasty "convert or die" outlook. This is the Islamic year 1436; their 15th Century. You wouldn't happen to remember what was happening in the New World beginning in the Christian 15th Century and beyond, would you? Does the word "Conquistador" ring any bells? How about Pizarro? "Manifest Destiny"?
"Convert or die" is always wrong, always barbaric, but it isn't exclusively Muslim.
The only real danger is the danger which always lies in politics. Until people get over the sick idea that it's OK to govern others, and that a majority can vote their will on a minority "for their own good", there is always a risk that someone will outvote you and impose their silly or destructive rules to govern you in a way which violates your Rightful Liberty, and which you object to. Nothing can make that right. It's long past time to stop repeating this destructive pattern.
(Also, check out the next post for a little follow-up I didn't have room to put in the paper.)
.
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
She's growing
My daughter is beginning to understand the difference between "subjective" and "objective".
She will sometimes say "That color is ugly!" or something like that. I mentioned a few times that her opinion about that was subjective; that other people might think it was beautiful and neither person would be wrong.
Then I mention that things such as hitting someone who simply makes you mad, or taking something that belongs to someone else, isn't subjective- it's wrong. I have explained that's the difference between "subjective" and "objective". She does seem to be starting to catch on.
It would be (subjectively?) nice if more adults understood that difference.
.
She will sometimes say "That color is ugly!" or something like that. I mentioned a few times that her opinion about that was subjective; that other people might think it was beautiful and neither person would be wrong.
Then I mention that things such as hitting someone who simply makes you mad, or taking something that belongs to someone else, isn't subjective- it's wrong. I have explained that's the difference between "subjective" and "objective". She does seem to be starting to catch on.
It would be (subjectively?) nice if more adults understood that difference.
.
Tuesday, February 03, 2015
Control is in government’s nature
Control is in government’s nature
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 2, 2015)
“If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one.”
— Robert LeFevre, libertarian businessman
One common argument for government is that people are evil, greedy, and cruel, so government is necessary to protect people from each other.
— Robert LeFevre, libertarian businessman
One common argument for government is that people are evil, greedy, and cruel, so government is necessary to protect people from each other.
This seems to ignore the fact government is made up of those same people. How giving some of those evil, greedy, and cruel people authority over the rest is supposed to solve the problem has always mystified me, and asking how this is imagined to work goes unanswered. It's a justification devoid of reason.
Human qualities run the gamut. Humans are selfish and selfless. We are greedy and generous. We fight and we cooperate. We are cruel and we are loving. We like having leaders and we often fall for Rulers.
History shows the negatives tend to be much more additive than are the positives. It is easier to commit evil if you can spread the blame to a group, rather than doing it on your own.
I'm not saying groups can't do good things- they often do- but true evil on a monumental scale usually takes a political "movement". Leaders convince followers to do all sorts of things they'd never dare doing on their own. This can either mean reaching for greatness which otherwise would never have been accomplished, or it can mean participating in genocide or democide. Charismatic leaders can convince people to reject their own principles for "patriotism" and for "the common good". Since humans do have some negative qualities, the worst thing you can do is give them justifications for putting those qualities into practice.
Some of the negatives aren't really negative. Selfishness often causes people to do nice things, because it makes them feel good. There's nothing wrong with that. Greed inspires people to give customers what they want in order to gain more in the long run. At least it's how it works in the free market where truly harmful behavior has consequences.
It seems funny that those who distrust human nature the most are under the impression that giving those flawed humans power and authority over others, and shielding them from the consequences of their actions by allowing them to hide within a group, will make them turn from their negative nature and bring out the best in them. The very nature of political power selects for people who have a desire to control the lives of others- in other words, the very sort of person who should never be permitted to hold power.
Keep doing the same thing, expecting different results. I'm sure it will happen this time.
Human qualities run the gamut. Humans are selfish and selfless. We are greedy and generous. We fight and we cooperate. We are cruel and we are loving. We like having leaders and we often fall for Rulers.
History shows the negatives tend to be much more additive than are the positives. It is easier to commit evil if you can spread the blame to a group, rather than doing it on your own.
I'm not saying groups can't do good things- they often do- but true evil on a monumental scale usually takes a political "movement". Leaders convince followers to do all sorts of things they'd never dare doing on their own. This can either mean reaching for greatness which otherwise would never have been accomplished, or it can mean participating in genocide or democide. Charismatic leaders can convince people to reject their own principles for "patriotism" and for "the common good". Since humans do have some negative qualities, the worst thing you can do is give them justifications for putting those qualities into practice.
Some of the negatives aren't really negative. Selfishness often causes people to do nice things, because it makes them feel good. There's nothing wrong with that. Greed inspires people to give customers what they want in order to gain more in the long run. At least it's how it works in the free market where truly harmful behavior has consequences.
It seems funny that those who distrust human nature the most are under the impression that giving those flawed humans power and authority over others, and shielding them from the consequences of their actions by allowing them to hide within a group, will make them turn from their negative nature and bring out the best in them. The very nature of political power selects for people who have a desire to control the lives of others- in other words, the very sort of person who should never be permitted to hold power.
Keep doing the same thing, expecting different results. I'm sure it will happen this time.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)