4-19: "Patriots Day"

I used to get all worked up over 4-19. "Patriots Day".

It has sorta lost its appeal to me. I now see it as people fighting over which masters they want. A silly and self-defeating thing if there ever was one. And considering what most people think of as "patriotic" makes me ill.

So, sure, use 4-19 as an excuse if you need one and exercise your liberty today. And the next. And next week and beyond.

You don't need an example; you don't need a leader. Just do it. You know what you need to do right now- opinions of the local goon syndicate notwithstanding. Ignore them as much as possible, sneak behind their backs if you must, and do what you need to do.

.

A wrinkle in "A Wrinkle in Time"

I read "A Wrinkle in Time" when I was in ... either late elementary school or early junior high. Strange that I can't pin it down, since it is usually easy for me to remember where I lived when I first read something- and I moved constantly. Maybe my timeline has wrinkles I am not aware of.

But, anyway, I remember feeling a bit disturbed by the book. Just a sense of unease. Some of the images stuck with me, and still do, but at the time I didn't enjoy the book. I need to read it again.

Well, a new passage has recently been discovered.

In it, the heroine is asking how Camazotz was taken over by evil. Her father explains that evil can take over through totalitarianism, but also from a desire for too much security. He says “Security is a most seductive thing...I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the greatest evil there is.”

Dead on!

Now, if only he had pointed out that all "governing" will inevitably lead to the same place.

-

Read the WSJ's take on the new passage here.

.

Do professional rapists protect you from freelance rapists?

The excuse that "some people do bad things" as justification for your belief in "government" is the same as saying that it would be best to allow professional rapists to prey on people rather than to risk freelance rapists.

And, of course, in the mind which operates like this, it would be wrong to resist or shoot the professional rapists because they protect you from the other rapists.

That's insane. Don't be insane.

Don't advocate professional rape because amateur rapists are out there. Just shoot the rapists.

.

Pardon my mess while I evolve

I just read "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose: A very good book which I highly recommend. (And FINALLY available in a Kindle edition, too!)

This "most dangerous superstition" is the belief in the imaginary trait known as "authority"; something that doesn't exist because it can't exist. Without the belief in it, bullies are just bullies, and theft is just theft- something I have tried to get across, but without understanding the root problem.

I was always said to "have a problem with authority", but now I am seeing that you can't have a problem with something imaginary, except by believing in it.

My only complaint with the book is that I think a Reader's Digest version might have more impact, because some things are repeated more times than I think necessary- on the other hand, repetition gets things to stick in your mind.

Anyway, I feel myself evolving again. As is always the case, it is toward more Liberty, with fewer inconsistencies. Once again I feel like more heavy baggage has been tossed aside, and I always like it when that happens. Not sure if anyone will notice a difference, but I can sure feel a difference.

.

Compromises between bad guys

"National borders" represent compromises between thieving thugs. Really, that's all they are.

Buying into them is propping up those thieving thugs on both sides of the "border".

"Borders" have no more legitimacy than the line separating the turf of the Blips and the Cruds- actually, even less. They only indicate the probable loyalty of the particular thug whose boot is on your neck right now.

Why would you want to keep propping up such a harmful superstition?

.

Honorable people don't

Is it honorable to hire yourself out to a gang?
To employ yourself, and spend your time, imposing the gangleader's wishes on others?
Molesting, aggressing, killing and violating property in the course of your employment?
Can you be a good person while doing so?

No. It isn't honorable. Not ever for any reason.

Military and cops are not "honorable".

.

Lawmakers much like rabid hyenas

Lawmakers much like rabid hyenas

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 13, 2015- However, I'm NOT just talking about "lawmakers" as the headline states- I'm talking about government employees of every sort.)

Why does so much news revolve around the individuals who call themselves "government"?

It's because they impose themselves in our lives. They make it necessary to know, in self defense, what they are up to. Through their actions they are a real and present danger to your life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property.

If a rabid hyena made its home under your porch you would think about it a lot; probably to the point of obsession. You couldn't afford to ignore it.

It's the same with those who believe they have the authority to interfere with your life. They are newsworthy only because of the damage and inconveniences they cause- although they fool some into believing they are helpful.

If they were no danger to your person or property who would want to waste any time thinking about them, much less reading or hearing about them? Without the media coverage those who fawn over them might suffer withdrawal, but the rest of us would be spared the constant parade of petty tyrants, their endless nannying, and their despicable deeds.

I would love to see a week where nothing done by government was reported in the news at all; just one week when they were all completely ignored.

Of course, that's dangerous. They would use the opportunity to attack your life in secret. Laws don't stop them. The only reason they restrain themselves as much as they do is because they know they are being watched. Not by everyone, but by enough people, and particularly by those who don't like what they see; those who look beyond what the politicians and bureaucrats say, and see what they actually do and observe the consequences.

It doesn't always work, as was frustratingly illustrated by the recent (and misnamed) "Net Neutrality" fiasco.

So watching them is necessary if you allow their make-work jobs to exist at all- which is the root of the problem.

During the heyday of America a person could go about their business for a lifetime and, as long as they weren't a thief or aggressor, never encounter government. It wasn't a constant presence. How many times have you been meddled with just today- through taxes, licenses, permits, laws, or by automatically altering your behavior to comply with some nonsensical rule to which you have become habituated?

As long as the popular addiction to allowing other people to control their lives exists, I'll be glad there are people reporting on what those in government are doing- even if reporters often coddle them by pretending government jobs are helpful or even necessary. I hunger for the day when they can be safely ignored.
.

"Law abiding taxpayer"

(Previously posted to Patreon)

"Law abiding taxpayer" is a really perverted term. When someone claims to be one, what they are really bragging about is the "honor" of being a compliant victim of theft and bullies.

Why brag about something that pathetic?

You might as well brag about being a cowardly back-stabber.

I understand why people pay the extortion called "taxes". Extortion works, otherwise thugs would find something else to try. But, be ashamed you were robbed, not proud of it.

And since "laws" are ALL either unnecessary or harmful, there is no honor in being "law abiding" either.

Don't initiate force. Don't violate the property of others. Those are things you can really be proud of- be a ZAP abiding property respecter, not a proudly compliant victim.

.

Intentions

I don't care about your intentions; I care about what you do.

I'd rather you do good with the absolute most horrible intentions than have good intentions while doing bad.

That's why I oppose those supposed "good cops" and military tools who are claimed to do what they do with the best of intentions. The results of what they do are bad.

The results are what matters. That's all that can matter.

.

Department of... what?

I was recently looking at a sign in front of a prison. The sign declared that the facility was a part of the "Texas Department of Justice".

That almost made me laugh. There is no justice in imprisonment.

So, I thought to myself that the sign should be changed to "Texas Department of Punishment" if truth in advertising were a real thing where The State is concerned.

Then I realized even that wasn't sufficient. For the sign to be really truthful it would need to say "Texas Department of Revenge". That's what we are really talking about here. And I am opposed to revenge- even though I have been guilty of vengeance a few times in the past.

I'd take it upon myself to change their misleading sign, but I don't feel like being made the focus of revenge by the authority-bloated bad guys who believe they own the facility built and maintained with stolen money.

.

A preference for Liberty

People act like a preference for Liberty is the same as a preference for ice tea over Dr Pepper. But it isn't.

You may have lots of reasons to prefer one drink over another, but really it comes down to opinions. You can point to differing health effects of the drinks, comparative costs, or whatever, but neither is ethically superior to the other. People make their choices and it's none of your business.

Not so with a preference for Liberty.

Because the opposite is quite definitely ethically (and usually, morally) inferior.

The desire to limit liberty is the desire to violate others. Liberty is self-limiting. It ends where another's liberty begins. So any preference to limit liberty necessarily violates liberty.

A preference for Liberty begins with respecting Liberty in others. That's the civilized way to be.

.

Daughter's request

My daughter is wanting a day out at the movies. I don't have the extra money for such an expenditure.

It's my responsibility, and I'm trying to use this as a teaching opportunity, but she's tired of hearing it.

So, if anyone would like to subsidize a "date" day with a Paypal donation, she would appreciate it. And so would I.

.

If I were mayor

After last week's Liberty Lines came out in the paper, one person suggested I should run for mayor.

No, I shouldn't. And partially because the thought appeals to my dark side. There is one "political litmus test"- Do you want the job? If so, you are disqualified. Not to mention the "job" of "mayor" shouldn't exist at all.

But, letting my dark side fantasize just a bit, and justifying the fantasy with the idea that at least I'd keep someone worse (that's right- I'd be the lesser evil) from holding the "job" as long as I held it...

Instead of posting reminders about getting building permits before improving your property (as the current clownishly evil mayor did in the same issue of the paper where my column appeared) I would post this:

People of Farwell- from now on, there are only two rules in town: Do not violate anyone by attacking them, and Do not violate anyone's private property. That's it. I will not stand behind the police if they enforce any other "law", nor if by doing so they violate those two rules. 

"Do not violate anyone by attacking them" can best be summed up by the Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." If you "initiate force"- that means "start it"- your victim can legitimately defend himself against you, no matter who you are, and no matter what your job may be. Thugs be warned!

Another way to explain the re-adoption of these forgotten rules is in the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." 

All other "laws" violate the rights of the individual. Do not violate anyone or their private property and we'll be fine.

.

Shaneen Allen- the wrap-up.

The good news is that Shaneen Allen got pardoned.

The bad news is that she was molested in the first place- and that her molesters are still alive.

Julie On Politics has been following the case from the beginning (see also here, here, and here).

No one has any "authority" to kidnap, cage, and rob a person for carrying a gun. Not anyone anywhere.

So, the cop who first violated her right to travel, the corrupt lawyer who charged her with a "crime", the "judge"- everyone who even facilitated her abuse in any supportive role- is guilty of violating her and owes her restitution from their own pocket. They can't afford the restitution they owe.

Of course, none will have to pay because they can hide behind the mental glitch of "government" and "law".

That is what makes me really angry over this whole incident. If people would just stop pretending these thugs have any special, magical "right" to molest people in ways no one has a right to do, things like this would never happen. She could have shot the guy trying to molest her as she traveled and, after short arbitration where it was shown he initiated force, that would have been the end of it.

.

My next door neighbor is awesome.

This was in this week's State Line Tribune, in response to my most recent Liberty Lines. It was unsolicited, in fact, I haven't even spoken to her since my column came out.

.

Voluntaryist volunteers

I was recently told by a government extremist that they doubt I ever volunteer. They were speaking specifically about teaching (other people's) kids, but as I won't participate in classroom settings anymore, that limits my opportunities around here. They claimed that was no excuse.

Perhaps. But that's not the only way to volunteer.

I actually have done classroom volunteering in the past. I have taught kids about mountainmen and demonstrated the mountainman skills. Without setting the school on fire or shooting anyone.

Now my volunteer work is mostly of a different nature.

For one, spending vast amounts of time debating statists in order to try to give them a hand improving the quality of their lives. Or at least helping observers see the truth and rightness of Rightful Liberty.

But that's not all. I pick up litter. A lot. I find it relaxing, and it also helps "the community" while it improves my life.

I have also taught kids- informally and on the spur of the moment- many different things I know. Just because I didn't set myself up as Teacher and make them take the role of Student doesn't mean I didn't teach them. (They have also taught me every time I taught them.)

But "liberals" have claimed I am a nasty, self-centered individualist, unlike themselves. Because I don't do it their approved way, through their approved channels, teaching their approved agenda.

I consider that another plus to me.

How many of you do volunteer work?

.

Death by broccoli- Death by liberty

Broccoli is healthy for you to eat, eating only broccoli isn't healthy. Some statists believe liberty is like that. Some is good, but "too much" is unhealthy.

They are wrong.

Is "too much" bad?

No.

First of all, there is no such thing as "too much" liberty, since liberty is self limiting- it ends where someone else's begins. Your liberty can not violate another person's- by definition.

Because liberty is doing anything which doesn't violate any other person or their property. There is no way for that to be bad.

In other words, some statists are grasping for justifications to enslave you so they'll feel more comfortable. Disgusting.

.

Only government wins in election

Only government wins in election

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 6, 2015)

I’m sure you’ve seen the “Peanuts” cartoons where Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown to kick, promising him she won’t pull it away this time. This time he’ll kick it. But every time she pulls the football away at the last instant and poor Charlie Brown lands flat on his back. How can he be surprised by the inevitable?

You may have also played a game with a habitual cheater. The kind who changes the rules to benefit himself as he plays. As the game progresses, they always discover a reason they win and you lose- and the new rule is as much a surprise to them as it is to you. Little kids are really bad about this.

Most adults grow out of it; the rest go into government.

Haven't you noticed no matter who you vote for, and no matter who wins, nothing really changes for the better? "This is the most important election in generations! This time your vote will make a difference! I promise!" Do you, like Charlie Brown, fall for it every time? Are you still surprised when voting for the lesser of two evils results in more evil? Are you shocked when, in spite of what your candidate says, once in office he does the same things he spent the campaign criticizing his opponent for doing?

Do you keep doing the same thing every election cycle, expecting different results each time?

I can't fault you too much. There is a powerful desire to keep doing what you've been assured can bring about the changes you want- even when you realize the system is rigged against you. What other choice is there? You get caught up and find yourself whipped into a frenzy; anxious to help choose the next person who'll impose invented rules upon your neighbors.

In any election, the only winner is the government. You and liberty are the consistent losers. With everyone voting for someone who promises to hurt the other guy on their behalf, America gets further and further away from what it was established to be.

I'm not telling you to stop voting if voting makes you feel as though you are doing something. I'm not telling you to reject politics. I'm not even telling you to keep your own house in order and let others do the same- even if their idea of order is different from yours. What I am telling you is you probably shouldn't be shocked when you get the result you keep voting for. When you find yourself on your back wondering how you missed the ball again, take a moment to reflect on your actions.

.

Killing people

In killing another human being, it is either self defense, defense of property, or it is murder.

It is only self defense if the person is currently attacking or threatening to attack in a credible manner.

It is only defense of property if the person is violating your property through theft, destruction, or trespassing- and you'd better be sure the violation is serious enough to be worth killing over (and that any arbitration you might face would agree).

.

Sometimes, they really aren't a Scotsman

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I know the danger of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Yet, if you were born on Mars to genetically (or whatever Martians might use in place of genes) distinct Martians and have never visited Earth, you are ridiculous to claim that you are a Scotsman.

It's the same if you claim to be a "libertarian" while advocating anti-libertarian positions. Like some "fairer taxes". Or "borders". Or the "tax"-financed military which is busily building the US Empire around the globe- and endangering everyone "at home" in America. Or, if you put the US Constitution above individual Rightful Liberty.

If you don't fit the minimum definition of a libertarian, you ain't one.

If you don't follow the ZAP to the best of your ability, and respect the private property of others, you may be a relatively nice statist, but whatever you are, it isn't libertarian.

I have had self-proclaimed libertarians scold me using those anti-libertarian positions ever since I first got online and vocal. "Libertarians honor the Constitution above all" was the first example of this, said to me after I mentioned I had no love for a document which set up a State and then failed to restrain it.

That was followed with "The income tax is legal- get over it!"

I have also had people say that because "borders" might help prolong "liberty" in America better than no borders, support for borders is the only "libertarian" position. Well, going on a well-coordiated mass killing spree against statists might mean a larger percentage of libertarians, compared to statists, alive in America, too, but it would still be an anti-libertarian (meaning: wrong) thing to do.

And, if you insist on worshiping the military because you were in it, or had friends or family in it- who may have even been maimed or killed- it's the same thing. Support for a State military is an anti-libertarian position, no matter how much you like it. No matter how "necessary" you might belive it to be. It can't be otherwise.

You have to meet certain criteria to honestly call yourself libertarian (or AVAL [abolitionist/voluntaryist/anarchist/libertarian], as the case may be). If you don't meet those criteria, then accept the fact- or change to align yourself with the right side.

.