You know I'm somewhat enthusiastic about preps. I try not to push the issue, since I don't think that helps- when it matters to you, you'll do it. I wish it mattered to everyone.
Over at Dirttime, Dude McLean has posted a good reminder I hope you'll take the time to read.
And, it gave me an idea.
He was talking about having dogs as an early warning for home invasions. But as you know, the most dangerous home invaders- members of the Blue Line Gang- often shoot the dogs first to prevent them from warning the gang's victims.
That is a problem with a solution- for someone who has the knowledge and drive to solve it- for a profit!
Electronic collars are available for all sorts of things now. What I'd like to see is one that triggers an alarm if the dog's heart stops beating. As soon as the badgethug pops the dog, floodlights come on all over the property and sirens sound, alerting everyone around to the danger.
Sure, there would need to be tweaks. You don't want the alarm going off if FluffyButt loses his collar. Maybe if the collar comes loose while the dog's heart is still beating, or if the battery is dying, you get a quieter alert so you can check it out.
Just an idea I hope some entrepreneur picks up and runs with. And gets wildly rich. I do think there'd be a market for it.
.
Monday, March 09, 2015
Sunday, March 08, 2015
Is history fiction?
(Previously posted to Patreon.)
I have never seen a "news" story, of which I have been personally aware of the background and first-hand details, that the media got right. Not even once out of maybe 10 or so instances. And I've heard the same from everyone I've ever discussed this fact with.
So, if you pay attention to the "news" you are possibly worse off than a person who you would consider completely unaware of current events. You are almost surely being misinformed- which I consider worse than uninformed.
I wonder how this applies to "history".
The way I see it, "history" is nothing more or less than fossilized "news". And I suspect it is just as misleading as the "news" reports of what supposedly happened today- if not more. Since there is no way to really correct the story in most cases.
So, learning from history probably is about as meaningful as learning from watching "The Hunger Games" or "Star Wars"- things you acknowledge to be fiction.
In a way that's upsetting, especially if you like history, but maybe you can still enjoy it if you just remember you are probably being lied to. The "history" you know probably wouldn't look familiar to those who lived through it.
.
I have never seen a "news" story, of which I have been personally aware of the background and first-hand details, that the media got right. Not even once out of maybe 10 or so instances. And I've heard the same from everyone I've ever discussed this fact with.
So, if you pay attention to the "news" you are possibly worse off than a person who you would consider completely unaware of current events. You are almost surely being misinformed- which I consider worse than uninformed.
I wonder how this applies to "history".
The way I see it, "history" is nothing more or less than fossilized "news". And I suspect it is just as misleading as the "news" reports of what supposedly happened today- if not more. Since there is no way to really correct the story in most cases.
So, learning from history probably is about as meaningful as learning from watching "The Hunger Games" or "Star Wars"- things you acknowledge to be fiction.
In a way that's upsetting, especially if you like history, but maybe you can still enjoy it if you just remember you are probably being lied to. The "history" you know probably wouldn't look familiar to those who lived through it.
.
Garry Reed's "Selected Salvos 2".
I recently finished reading Garry Reed's latest little collection, "Selected Salvos 2 from the Loose Cannon Libertarian".
It was a lot of fun!
It is also a reminder of how little the State and all the associated problems have changed in the decade-plus since most of these essays were written. Most could have been written today, rather than in the dawning years of the 2000s. Sure, the names of some of the individual thugs have changed, but the stories are so familiar.
I like his "Fun & Freedom" approach, and loved the sense of humor he exhibits in exposing these statist imbeciles and their ridiculous behavior. Instead of letting them get him down, he points and laughs.
It is a pretty short book, but was just what I needed while sitting in doctors' waiting rooms and such, recently. I can recommend the book without reservation.
Different ways to get the book are listed below the cover.
It was a lot of fun!
It is also a reminder of how little the State and all the associated problems have changed in the decade-plus since most of these essays were written. Most could have been written today, rather than in the dawning years of the 2000s. Sure, the names of some of the individual thugs have changed, but the stories are so familiar.
I like his "Fun & Freedom" approach, and loved the sense of humor he exhibits in exposing these statist imbeciles and their ridiculous behavior. Instead of letting them get him down, he points and laughs.
It is a pretty short book, but was just what I needed while sitting in doctors' waiting rooms and such, recently. I can recommend the book without reservation.
Different ways to get the book are listed below the cover.
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/km4jxqr
Kindle: http://tinyurl.com/okqacn3
Barnes&Noble: http://tinyurl.com/o339l2o
Goodreads: http://tinyurl.com/khvrvox
(And, for a video about the book- YouTube: http://youtu.be/MYFWQlTIYPs)
.
Read it and absorb it
MamaLiberty has written a really great one.
She called it "Do You Smile Every Day?", but seriously, it is about so much more than that. Please go read it and think about how it applies to your life right now.
.
She called it "Do You Smile Every Day?", but seriously, it is about so much more than that. Please go read it and think about how it applies to your life right now.
.
"Private, for-profit" man cages
"Private, for-profit" prisons are just as bad as their State-run twins. First of all, they are not "private" since they depend utterly on the criminal-creating State for their existence and profits.
Anything run by the State is bad, because it is completely dependent upon theft and aggression. That needs to be said right up front.
If your "profit" relies on actions of the State, it is just as bad.
When the "private" effort is just as evil as the State effort, it's a good sign what you are doing simply shouldn't be done.
That's not saying there couldn't be any possibility of a prison in a free society- a man cage which never takes any operating funds from anyone against their will, never sinks to enforcing any counterfeit "rules", and is subject to restitution when it injures an innocent person or goes "too far" in punishing the guilty. I would still never support such a place, but you might.
But that isn't what "private, for-profit" prisons are.
Plus they use the force of the State to make sure they have lots of prisoners. They are always mounting about the biggest lobbying efforts against ending the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, just for one example of their evil.
They are scummy institutions and need to die.
.
Anything run by the State is bad, because it is completely dependent upon theft and aggression. That needs to be said right up front.
If your "profit" relies on actions of the State, it is just as bad.
When the "private" effort is just as evil as the State effort, it's a good sign what you are doing simply shouldn't be done.
That's not saying there couldn't be any possibility of a prison in a free society- a man cage which never takes any operating funds from anyone against their will, never sinks to enforcing any counterfeit "rules", and is subject to restitution when it injures an innocent person or goes "too far" in punishing the guilty. I would still never support such a place, but you might.
But that isn't what "private, for-profit" prisons are.
Plus they use the force of the State to make sure they have lots of prisoners. They are always mounting about the biggest lobbying efforts against ending the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, just for one example of their evil.
They are scummy institutions and need to die.
.
Saturday, March 07, 2015
Finally- I find an excuse for government
I'm always saying there's no excuse for government.
I have been wrong.
There is an excuse: insanity.
Insanity is the only thing that can excuse a person for believing the statist propaganda and rejecting reality. So, when someone advocates government or The State, just think of it as pleading insanity and deal with them appropriately.
.
I have been wrong.
There is an excuse: insanity.
Insanity is the only thing that can excuse a person for believing the statist propaganda and rejecting reality. So, when someone advocates government or The State, just think of it as pleading insanity and deal with them appropriately.
.
Thursday, March 05, 2015
Good ISIS?
I admit, I despise ISIS on a couple of different levels. They are religious, and they are a State. They also, because they are a State, use aggression to coerce others. But I am willing to look beyond my prejudices and consider the question more deeply:
Are any ISIS members good people?
I will admit that as long as a member of ISIS isn't currently engaged in aggression he doesn't deserve to be killed at that moment. But "good"?
By choosing to join ISIS one is declaring his support for the evil done in the name of ISIS by other members. By choosing to remain in ISIS he makes the same choice every morning he awakes and doesn't immediately abandon the group.
To me, this removes any concern I might have if he is killed while a member of ISIS- even if he isn't currently committing aggression. While I wouldn't kill him myself unless I witness him committing (or credibly threatening) aggression, I can't be sorry he is dead. Even though his enemy is usually also my enemy.
I'm sure a lot of people in the region where ISIS is active believe they are the good guys; doing what is necessary- the "hard things"- for the "common good". Public support doesn't make them right or good. Popularity can't make "right" any more than "might" can.
You can't remain a good person after joining ISIS, even if your goal was to get in to change ISIS from the inside. Even if you somehow manage to remain innocent, your fellow members will get rid of you one way or another. Especially if they see you having any effect on others in the group. ISIS's very nature means as soon as you join you become part of the problem. You are choosing to self-identify with those whose entire "job" is to commit evil acts, blaming some "superior force" for those acts, rather than accepting personal responsibility.
So, no, there can be no "good" ISIS members. It goes against all logic, rationality, and ethics to claim otherwise.
Now, replace "ISIS" with "the police" in all the above and notice it is still 100% true and accurate.
.
Are any ISIS members good people?
I will admit that as long as a member of ISIS isn't currently engaged in aggression he doesn't deserve to be killed at that moment. But "good"?
By choosing to join ISIS one is declaring his support for the evil done in the name of ISIS by other members. By choosing to remain in ISIS he makes the same choice every morning he awakes and doesn't immediately abandon the group.
To me, this removes any concern I might have if he is killed while a member of ISIS- even if he isn't currently committing aggression. While I wouldn't kill him myself unless I witness him committing (or credibly threatening) aggression, I can't be sorry he is dead. Even though his enemy is usually also my enemy.
I'm sure a lot of people in the region where ISIS is active believe they are the good guys; doing what is necessary- the "hard things"- for the "common good". Public support doesn't make them right or good. Popularity can't make "right" any more than "might" can.
You can't remain a good person after joining ISIS, even if your goal was to get in to change ISIS from the inside. Even if you somehow manage to remain innocent, your fellow members will get rid of you one way or another. Especially if they see you having any effect on others in the group. ISIS's very nature means as soon as you join you become part of the problem. You are choosing to self-identify with those whose entire "job" is to commit evil acts, blaming some "superior force" for those acts, rather than accepting personal responsibility.
So, no, there can be no "good" ISIS members. It goes against all logic, rationality, and ethics to claim otherwise.
Now, replace "ISIS" with "the police" in all the above and notice it is still 100% true and accurate.
.
Wednesday, March 04, 2015
The logic behind statism
Because poison exists in the world, we must add it to our soup, otherwise we might be poisoned by accident.
This is the same reasoning that says because some people are evil, we must have a government/State to protect us from those evil people.
Shooting yourself because someone might shoot you isn't usually the smartest course of action.
.
This is the same reasoning that says because some people are evil, we must have a government/State to protect us from those evil people.
Shooting yourself because someone might shoot you isn't usually the smartest course of action.
.
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
‘Radical’ not bad if rooted in good
‘Radical’ not bad if rooted in good
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 30, 2015)
Being "radical" has gotten a bad name due to horrible acts committed by evil radicals. The fault doesn't lie in being radical; it comes from being radical about bad things, or beliefs, which convince people it's acceptable to use aggression, coercion, and theft to advance their cause.
"Radical" is from the Latin word radix, meaning "root". Most of the definitions of the word I have seen make the point that radicals "go down to the root"- to the very foundation of their beliefs. Another term for radical is "fundamentalist".
I think there's another facet to the word.
Being "radical" also means you are rooted; grounded. You are not tossed around by changing winds. Unlike a tumbleweed broken free of its roots, you stand firm as the gusts blow others off their feet.
In other words to be "radical" merely indicates you have principles. Those principles can be either good or bad. Most people seem to shy away from having principles of any kind. Too limiting, I suppose.
When your principles don't permit you to quietly go along with the prevailing culture- to stand firm, doing right when everyone around you believes you are wrong- it can be difficult.
Being a radical for good means your principles don't violate the individual Rightful Liberty or private property of anyone else, nor will you violate others in pursuit of those principles.
Flawed principles which stray from this must be quite tempting to many radicals, since going astray seems so common.
Radical is also relative.
A couple hundred years ago, anyone advocating to allow government to read all communications, to enforce "laws" regulating travel, to make almost every human activity either mandatory, forbidden, or subject to permits- in other words just about anything the various federal, state, and local governments do today- would have been the radical. This is now mainstream and anyone who objects or resists is seen as the radical.
Those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human activity- the statists- have always been the majority. They are dangerous radicals. Statists attempt to control others from every direction, and some of them like to use a particular set of religious radicals, among other hobgoblins, as justification for violating everyone else.
Bad radicals are most dangerous when they get political power and use it the way all statists do: to impose their beliefs, with force of law, on those who don't share their beliefs. Bad radical versus bad radical, with you and me caught in the middle.
Have principles. Be a radical. Make certain your roots are in the right place, and don't ever forget that the end never justifies the means.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 30, 2015)
Being "radical" has gotten a bad name due to horrible acts committed by evil radicals. The fault doesn't lie in being radical; it comes from being radical about bad things, or beliefs, which convince people it's acceptable to use aggression, coercion, and theft to advance their cause.
"Radical" is from the Latin word radix, meaning "root". Most of the definitions of the word I have seen make the point that radicals "go down to the root"- to the very foundation of their beliefs. Another term for radical is "fundamentalist".
I think there's another facet to the word.
Being "radical" also means you are rooted; grounded. You are not tossed around by changing winds. Unlike a tumbleweed broken free of its roots, you stand firm as the gusts blow others off their feet.
In other words to be "radical" merely indicates you have principles. Those principles can be either good or bad. Most people seem to shy away from having principles of any kind. Too limiting, I suppose.
When your principles don't permit you to quietly go along with the prevailing culture- to stand firm, doing right when everyone around you believes you are wrong- it can be difficult.
Being a radical for good means your principles don't violate the individual Rightful Liberty or private property of anyone else, nor will you violate others in pursuit of those principles.
Flawed principles which stray from this must be quite tempting to many radicals, since going astray seems so common.
Radical is also relative.
A couple hundred years ago, anyone advocating to allow government to read all communications, to enforce "laws" regulating travel, to make almost every human activity either mandatory, forbidden, or subject to permits- in other words just about anything the various federal, state, and local governments do today- would have been the radical. This is now mainstream and anyone who objects or resists is seen as the radical.
Those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human activity- the statists- have always been the majority. They are dangerous radicals. Statists attempt to control others from every direction, and some of them like to use a particular set of religious radicals, among other hobgoblins, as justification for violating everyone else.
Bad radicals are most dangerous when they get political power and use it the way all statists do: to impose their beliefs, with force of law, on those who don't share their beliefs. Bad radical versus bad radical, with you and me caught in the middle.
Have principles. Be a radical. Make certain your roots are in the right place, and don't ever forget that the end never justifies the means.
.
Liberty, literally
I got lectured recently (and not for the first time) by someone who believes the word "liberty" means the opposite of what I mean when I use the word- the negative opposite of what the word should mean.
His definition is the one which means "permission from authority". Such as the military meaning of the word "liberty".
This tendency for enemies of liberty, rights, anarchy and all the positive things in life to assign an opposite, negative meaning to a good word is just like the recent redefinition of the word "literally" to also mean the opposite of "literally"- "figuratively".
Which is why I am pretty careful to constantly harp on what I mean when I use a word. I think it makes misunderstandings less likely, but some people want to misunderstand and argue. There's no stopping them if that's what they want, but they sure look silly.
Of course, this is the same person who believes in his magical incantations, so what do I expect?
.
His definition is the one which means "permission from authority". Such as the military meaning of the word "liberty".
This tendency for enemies of liberty, rights, anarchy and all the positive things in life to assign an opposite, negative meaning to a good word is just like the recent redefinition of the word "literally" to also mean the opposite of "literally"- "figuratively".
Which is why I am pretty careful to constantly harp on what I mean when I use a word. I think it makes misunderstandings less likely, but some people want to misunderstand and argue. There's no stopping them if that's what they want, but they sure look silly.
Of course, this is the same person who believes in his magical incantations, so what do I expect?
.
Monday, March 02, 2015
The Cult of Punishment
A lot of people- even those self-identifying as "mostly libertarian"- are big fans of punishment.
They may prefer private punishment over State, "tax"-funded punishment, but just as rape isn't "better" because you aren't wearing a cop uniform when you commit it, punishment doesn't magically become alright just because you don't call yourself The State.
Many people seem to forget that government isn't what makes aggression wrong; aggression is what makes government wrong. Along with theft.
With most violations, punishment actually helps no one. Restitution can make things right- or as right as humanly possible- and the guilty may feel "punished", but with restitution, there is a quantifiable goal and when the debt is paid, it is over. No so with prison, which costs the victim even more ("tax" money to house and feed the aggressor/thief), therefore victimizing the victim again, as well as everyone else who has better uses for their money than maintaining a human farm.
Punishment feeds a psychological desire to see a person who made someone else suffer, also suffer. As much or more than his victim. As with many psychological desires, this one is not healthy, while still being understandable. I think it is somewhat immature (and I have fallen into the same trap, so any fingers pointed at anyone else are also pointed back at myself). Basically, punishment only makes the fans of punishment feel better.
But, many believe punishment is especially "necessary" in order to either force an aggressor to pay back a debt which can't be paid back, or to ensure a reduction in aggression into the future. After all, there can be no restitution for some things, and "what if" the guilty person attacks again?
Does this sort of punishment actually accomplish what its proponents claim?
Does punishment pay the debt for a rape or murder? If something is truly paid for, then the violation ceases to be. If so, then there is no more reason to feel like a victim, or damaged, once punishment has been exacted and the violation is "paid". Things are either back to how they were before the violation took place, or the victim is satisfied with the outcome. I doubt any victim of rape or murder would make that claim, even if the aggressor were tortured to death, slowly, over the course of months. So punishment fails spectacularly in this instance.
Punishment can never "pay" for a rape or murder.
What about ensuring a reduction in the violations into the future?
Apparently, those who are prone to commit aggression don't worry much about consequences. Or, at least those who don't try to veil their acts with the false legitimacy of government don't worry much about consequences. For one thing, they all seem to believe they'll never be caught; that only happens to "the other guy" who isn't as clever.
The one thing which does seem to alter their behavior is the realization that the pool of potential targets has a high percentage of armed people in it. This is an immediate consequence they can actually visualize and adjust their behavior to deal with. Such as, seeking out places which criminalize self defense and the effective tools with which to carry it out.
So, I am very dubious about the claim that harsh punishment carried out on one aggressor will change the behavior of others in a way that will reduce aggression in the long run. Your best bet is to be prepared to defend yourself and those around you from bad guys.
How about the guy you've caught in the act? (And who somehow survived being caught.)
Sure, if you "execute" a murderer, he won't murder again. Most probably wouldn't have anyway, but let's pretend they would have. Unless they went on to commit 2 or more murders you haven't gained anything, since their death- at a time when they were not currently engaged in aggression (otherwise it isn't an "execution". it is self defense) and were under control (because unless they are under your total control how could you perform your death healing ritual on them?) is one more death than existed before you committed the act. Sure, you could say that his potential future victims were innocent, and he is a murderer, so his death doesn't count for as much. But, again, if he is not currently committing aggression or theft at the time you kill him, he is- at that moment- innocent of anything worthy of death.
Most murders are a "one-off" event. No, that doesn't help the victim, but it also makes it silly to kill the murderer to prevent more murders in the future. The exception is the person who goes on a murder spree- and they are much less likely to survive long enough for punishment to be an issue, unless the pool of targets has been "legally" primed (disarmed) for their convenience.
If you execute someone who wasn't caught in the act, your chance of murdering an innocent person is too great for me to support in any way. And if you use "tax" money to carry out any form of punishment, you are heaping evil on top of evil.
The ONLY legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Period. You can sort out any details beyond that later.
I don't "believe in" imprisonment, either, but at least this act is subject to restitution of sorts if it is discovered you are accusing the wrong person. A death penalty isn't.
If a person deserves (by your account) to be in a cage, he probably deserves to be killed by his next target. Or by a witness to his next act of theft or aggression. Yes, some will escape to violate again. Nothing will ever prevent that- not even if we are all kept in cages with round-the-clock surveillance. The dangers associated with "too much liberty" are preferable to those associated with too little. If you disagree, you can establish your own parallel "system"- just leave me out of it.
If you believe in punishment, and actually act on that belief, I may judge you to be the bad guy. If you still believe you are right, then my opinion shouldn't matter. Do what you are going to do with a clear conscience. If you find your conscience nagging you, though, perhaps you should examine your premises a little more deeply.
I truly believe a desire to see punishment carried out hurts you as much- or worse- than those you believe you are using it against. I have seen it over and over again. Choose to believe me or not.
.
They may prefer private punishment over State, "tax"-funded punishment, but just as rape isn't "better" because you aren't wearing a cop uniform when you commit it, punishment doesn't magically become alright just because you don't call yourself The State.
Many people seem to forget that government isn't what makes aggression wrong; aggression is what makes government wrong. Along with theft.
With most violations, punishment actually helps no one. Restitution can make things right- or as right as humanly possible- and the guilty may feel "punished", but with restitution, there is a quantifiable goal and when the debt is paid, it is over. No so with prison, which costs the victim even more ("tax" money to house and feed the aggressor/thief), therefore victimizing the victim again, as well as everyone else who has better uses for their money than maintaining a human farm.
Punishment feeds a psychological desire to see a person who made someone else suffer, also suffer. As much or more than his victim. As with many psychological desires, this one is not healthy, while still being understandable. I think it is somewhat immature (and I have fallen into the same trap, so any fingers pointed at anyone else are also pointed back at myself). Basically, punishment only makes the fans of punishment feel better.
But, many believe punishment is especially "necessary" in order to either force an aggressor to pay back a debt which can't be paid back, or to ensure a reduction in aggression into the future. After all, there can be no restitution for some things, and "what if" the guilty person attacks again?
Does this sort of punishment actually accomplish what its proponents claim?
Does punishment pay the debt for a rape or murder? If something is truly paid for, then the violation ceases to be. If so, then there is no more reason to feel like a victim, or damaged, once punishment has been exacted and the violation is "paid". Things are either back to how they were before the violation took place, or the victim is satisfied with the outcome. I doubt any victim of rape or murder would make that claim, even if the aggressor were tortured to death, slowly, over the course of months. So punishment fails spectacularly in this instance.
Punishment can never "pay" for a rape or murder.
What about ensuring a reduction in the violations into the future?
Apparently, those who are prone to commit aggression don't worry much about consequences. Or, at least those who don't try to veil their acts with the false legitimacy of government don't worry much about consequences. For one thing, they all seem to believe they'll never be caught; that only happens to "the other guy" who isn't as clever.
The one thing which does seem to alter their behavior is the realization that the pool of potential targets has a high percentage of armed people in it. This is an immediate consequence they can actually visualize and adjust their behavior to deal with. Such as, seeking out places which criminalize self defense and the effective tools with which to carry it out.
So, I am very dubious about the claim that harsh punishment carried out on one aggressor will change the behavior of others in a way that will reduce aggression in the long run. Your best bet is to be prepared to defend yourself and those around you from bad guys.
How about the guy you've caught in the act? (And who somehow survived being caught.)
Sure, if you "execute" a murderer, he won't murder again. Most probably wouldn't have anyway, but let's pretend they would have. Unless they went on to commit 2 or more murders you haven't gained anything, since their death- at a time when they were not currently engaged in aggression (otherwise it isn't an "execution". it is self defense) and were under control (because unless they are under your total control how could you perform your death healing ritual on them?) is one more death than existed before you committed the act. Sure, you could say that his potential future victims were innocent, and he is a murderer, so his death doesn't count for as much. But, again, if he is not currently committing aggression or theft at the time you kill him, he is- at that moment- innocent of anything worthy of death.
Most murders are a "one-off" event. No, that doesn't help the victim, but it also makes it silly to kill the murderer to prevent more murders in the future. The exception is the person who goes on a murder spree- and they are much less likely to survive long enough for punishment to be an issue, unless the pool of targets has been "legally" primed (disarmed) for their convenience.
If you execute someone who wasn't caught in the act, your chance of murdering an innocent person is too great for me to support in any way. And if you use "tax" money to carry out any form of punishment, you are heaping evil on top of evil.
The ONLY legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Period. You can sort out any details beyond that later.
I don't "believe in" imprisonment, either, but at least this act is subject to restitution of sorts if it is discovered you are accusing the wrong person. A death penalty isn't.
If a person deserves (by your account) to be in a cage, he probably deserves to be killed by his next target. Or by a witness to his next act of theft or aggression. Yes, some will escape to violate again. Nothing will ever prevent that- not even if we are all kept in cages with round-the-clock surveillance. The dangers associated with "too much liberty" are preferable to those associated with too little. If you disagree, you can establish your own parallel "system"- just leave me out of it.
If you believe in punishment, and actually act on that belief, I may judge you to be the bad guy. If you still believe you are right, then my opinion shouldn't matter. Do what you are going to do with a clear conscience. If you find your conscience nagging you, though, perhaps you should examine your premises a little more deeply.
I truly believe a desire to see punishment carried out hurts you as much- or worse- than those you believe you are using it against. I have seen it over and over again. Choose to believe me or not.
.
Sunday, March 01, 2015
It's that Old White Magic again
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I have said several times that I am not a believer in magical incantations. Those who think they have discovered the obscure things to say to government employees, to get those parasites to slink away in shame, are (I believe) sincere, but deluded.
I shared the link to my recent post, Liberty- I don't, on Facebook and got slammed by one of "those guys". Mostly I pity him. But I really didn't appreciate his attitude.
Don't get me wrong- I think it would be great if there were words you could recite to send govthugs scurrying never to molest you again. From what I've seen, the attempt doesn't usually work too well for those who depend on it.
I really don't know what to say to people who believe this- especially those who get hysterical because I don't buy what they are selling. I wish them luck in pursuing their beliefs, and if it ever starts working, I may change my mind. Until then...
.
I have said several times that I am not a believer in magical incantations. Those who think they have discovered the obscure things to say to government employees, to get those parasites to slink away in shame, are (I believe) sincere, but deluded.
I shared the link to my recent post, Liberty- I don't, on Facebook and got slammed by one of "those guys". Mostly I pity him. But I really didn't appreciate his attitude.
Don't get me wrong- I think it would be great if there were words you could recite to send govthugs scurrying never to molest you again. From what I've seen, the attempt doesn't usually work too well for those who depend on it.
I really don't know what to say to people who believe this- especially those who get hysterical because I don't buy what they are selling. I wish them luck in pursuing their beliefs, and if it ever starts working, I may change my mind. Until then...
.
Liberty- I don't!*
I don't want to tax anyone.
I don't want to criminalize anything.
I don't support any State or government.
I am not "for" any politician.
I don't want anyone punished- especially not by "law".
I give no weight to permits, licenses, papers, or whatever statists believe legitimize things.
I don't believe in the Cult of The State in any way, shape, or form, nor for any reason.
And I have a difficult time understanding those who do.
*A play on "Freedom- I won't" from "And Then There Were None".
.
I don't want to criminalize anything.
I don't support any State or government.
I am not "for" any politician.
I don't want anyone punished- especially not by "law".
I give no weight to permits, licenses, papers, or whatever statists believe legitimize things.
I don't believe in the Cult of The State in any way, shape, or form, nor for any reason.
And I have a difficult time understanding those who do.
-
*A play on "Freedom- I won't" from "And Then There Were None".
.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Governing- always without authority
The biggest problem with "the left" and "the right" is that they just don't understand that government has no authority. They cheer when The State does something they like; they scream and wail when government does something they hate. They never seem to figure out "government" is just bad people with control issues gathering together under one label to do things to you that you'd recognize as evil if someone did them without first calling themselves "government".
Government can't grant amnesty, nor can it require work permits or proof of citizenship.
Government can't make weapon possession wrong, nor can it protect your rights to own and to carry weapons since government is the only real threat to those rights (the employees either choose to be evil and enforce anti-gun "laws", or be neutral and not enforce them).
Government simply has no authority- and if you imagine it does, that's just an illustration of the power of your imagination. Yes, those working as "government" have power- they can kill you, cage you, and destroy your property- but that power is illegitimate and is done without authority.
If you want government to "do something", you are a supporter of big, powerful government, no matter what the "something" you want may be.
Government can't grant amnesty, nor can it require work permits or proof of citizenship.
Government can't make weapon possession wrong, nor can it protect your rights to own and to carry weapons since government is the only real threat to those rights (the employees either choose to be evil and enforce anti-gun "laws", or be neutral and not enforce them).
Government simply has no authority- and if you imagine it does, that's just an illustration of the power of your imagination. Yes, those working as "government" have power- they can kill you, cage you, and destroy your property- but that power is illegitimate and is done without authority.
If you want government to "do something", you are a supporter of big, powerful government, no matter what the "something" you want may be.
.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
A snake in the grass
I hate to give this guy more views on his rather unpopular video, but when he says "Nutball 'Patriots' accuse Dave of being an undercover federal agent bent on the destruction of the 'Patriot Movement'" (in the video's description), he is talking about me.
I am not a "patriot", and I never mentioned "The Patriot Movement" in the discussion he is referring to (which I have preserved in its entirety by screen cap, for posterity). I also never sent him any private message- and suggested (in a public comment on the video) he post screen caps of any I supposedly sent him.
.
I am not a "patriot", and I never mentioned "The Patriot Movement" in the discussion he is referring to (which I have preserved in its entirety by screen cap, for posterity). I also never sent him any private message- and suggested (in a public comment on the video) he post screen caps of any I supposedly sent him.
He is a liar on these points, so if you are listening to his advice in regards to anything else, be very careful.
I can't believe people actually recommended him to me in the past. No thanks. With "friends" like him, I don't need any aggressors.
Added- Here are the screencaps, in case you are interested and can't see them on Facebook. As usual, click to embiggen:
Added- Here are the screencaps, in case you are interested and can't see them on Facebook. As usual, click to embiggen:
Let's get this underground railroad moving
So, UPS and FedEx refuse to ship the Ghost Gunner. That's within their rights*- or the rights of the owners, anyway. (*I'm slightly dubious on the basis that they got in bed with The State by incorporating and basically becoming part of The State, but I'll ignore that objection for the moment.)
So, how to get Ghost Gunners to those who bought them? I am willing to be a station on the Ghost Gunner underground railroad. Maybe "the Ghost Railroad" would be a more appropriate name. And I offer this service without charge, simply because I think it is in my best interest to get as many of these as possible to the people who will use them.
This is something concrete I can do for liberty.
Maybe this isn't a good idea- and yes, I see potential problems. Maybe Defense Distributed doesn't need my help. I offer it anyway.
So, I am writing to Defense Distributed, offering my services. I hope lots of people are willing to join me.
(H/T to War on Guns.)
.
So, how to get Ghost Gunners to those who bought them? I am willing to be a station on the Ghost Gunner underground railroad. Maybe "the Ghost Railroad" would be a more appropriate name. And I offer this service without charge, simply because I think it is in my best interest to get as many of these as possible to the people who will use them.
This is something concrete I can do for liberty.
Maybe this isn't a good idea- and yes, I see potential problems. Maybe Defense Distributed doesn't need my help. I offer it anyway.
So, I am writing to Defense Distributed, offering my services. I hope lots of people are willing to join me.
(H/T to War on Guns.)
.
Don't waste your worry
I always hear people saying "If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about".
I have my doubts, due to the fact I have actually learned from history.
But how about this: If you are going to worry anyway, why not go ahead and do the things you are afraid you'll be accused of? At least then you can worry with good reason.
Of course, those who usually say the parroted police state mantra I quoted at the beginning won't worry about anything until they suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of a Jackboot's gun. And then they'll be so surprised and convince themselves that it's one of those rare "bad apples"*.
.
I have my doubts, due to the fact I have actually learned from history.
But how about this: If you are going to worry anyway, why not go ahead and do the things you are afraid you'll be accused of? At least then you can worry with good reason.
Of course, those who usually say the parroted police state mantra I quoted at the beginning won't worry about anything until they suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of a Jackboot's gun. And then they'll be so surprised and convince themselves that it's one of those rare "bad apples"*.
-
*The "bad apples" give the other 0% of cops a bad name..
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Abolish the FCC for TRUE net neutrality
So, since it seems inevitable that the State will vote to give itself power and false authority to destroy the internet (if not now, soon, since they can never be content to live with it when they lose a vote, but keep trying until they get their way- which they always, eventually do), how can "we" route around the damage? I'm sure someone can, even if it shuts me out due to not being technical enough.
Sure, I lived without the internet until about 2002, and although I have enjoyed it (mostly), I can live without it again.
I swiped this pic from Claire's blog, but I have seen it a couple other places over the past few days:
I have no doubt that any damage to the internet will be temporary, since freedom will find a way around it- either through the internet or through the next thing. It does seem a shame to allow stupid and controlling puppeticians and bureaucraps to push their idea of "neutrality" on everyone else.
Net "neutrality"? Nope. Not "neutrality" at all. They intend to neuter it, instead, because it is too dangerous to their other plans and wishes. Vermin.
.
Sure, I lived without the internet until about 2002, and although I have enjoyed it (mostly), I can live without it again.
I swiped this pic from Claire's blog, but I have seen it a couple other places over the past few days:
I have no doubt that any damage to the internet will be temporary, since freedom will find a way around it- either through the internet or through the next thing. It does seem a shame to allow stupid and controlling puppeticians and bureaucraps to push their idea of "neutrality" on everyone else.
Net "neutrality"? Nope. Not "neutrality" at all. They intend to neuter it, instead, because it is too dangerous to their other plans and wishes. Vermin.
.
A taste of his own medicine!
Don't let it be said I can't enjoy good news!
A verminous tax junkie got a small taste of karma: Sheriff that Laughed about Flash Banging a Toddler, Was Just Shot By Murderous Rogue Cop*
*Maybe that's what a "good cop" would look like
A verminous tax junkie got a small taste of karma: Sheriff that Laughed about Flash Banging a Toddler, Was Just Shot By Murderous Rogue Cop*
*Maybe that's what a "good cop" would look like
Ritual "Healings"
Can murder be healed through mystic ritual? That seems to be part of what I hear from supporters of the State's death penalty.
Burying someone up to their shoulders to be stoned, strapping them onto a gurney, or into an electric chair; it's just a ritual murder to supposedly heal society of the previous murder. To say it ensures that murderer won't kill again is just an excuse.
I'll have more to say about the Cult of Punishment later.
.
Burying someone up to their shoulders to be stoned, strapping them onto a gurney, or into an electric chair; it's just a ritual murder to supposedly heal society of the previous murder. To say it ensures that murderer won't kill again is just an excuse.
I'll have more to say about the Cult of Punishment later.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)