For those who would like to have more things to hate me for, I have a confession: I am a dog killer.
Or, I have been.
So, how can I hold dog-killing cops in contempt if I'm no better than them?
Well, I am better than them; I never killed a dog in its own territory while I was trespassing, but only at my house. And, always in defense of my property.
When I was younger I always had chickens, pheasants, quail, doves, and rabbits in my yard. In a fenced in area, or in pens and cages. I lost a lot of them to neighbors' dogs, who would run in a pack at night, come to my yard, climb over (or under) the fence, tear open the cages, and kill my animals.
That doesn't sit well with me. My animals are my responsibility to protect, and I take that seriously.
But, at first I was nice. I told the neighbors what had happened and asked them to keep their dogs out of my yard. The response I got several times: "That's your problem."
OK, so if it is my problem, I will solve it myself. And I did. One .22 hollowpoint at a time.
It was a short-term solution, as the neighbors would get a replacement as soon as "Fluffy" stopped coming home. One thing I noticed is these dogs weren't loved. Every one of them was so covered in ticks (and fleas) you couldn't see any skin on their faces- they were just an object to their owners, which made me sad even as I shot them.
The permanent solution was so simple I wish I had discovered it years earlier: Wild turkeys.
A friend gave me some 2nd generation wild turkeys her uncle had hatched out. I put them in a pen that adjoined my chicken pen- and I never lost another critter to dogs.
The turkeys were mean. When I went in their pen I had to wear a heavy coat, make sure my hat protected the back of my neck, and carry a shovel for protection. And I still got flogged. In fact, I had to reinforce the wire of the pen near the door to the chicken pen because the tom would attack the wire each time I went in to do any chicken work, and he was ripping the wire.
But I never had to shoot another dog in protection of my livestock again, and that made me happy.
Later, though, I almost shot another neighbor's dog- this time in defense of my older daughter.
She was about 4 years old, playing in the yard, when she started to scream. A neighbor's black lab had her cornered and was barking aggressively at her. I grabbed some rocks and rushed the dog pelting him and yelling. He ran and I chased him home. His owner was outside and started cussing me for chasing his dog. I told him his dog was in my yard, threatening my daughter- and to keep it out of my yard. He said he didn't believe in keeping dogs penned or chained, because it was like his child. I told him my daughter IS my child, and if his dog doesn't stay out of my yard I would shoot it. I also let him know it wasn't the first trouble I had experienced with his dog- it had ripped up a couple of deerskins I was tanning, and my patience was used up.
Somehow the guy managed to find a way to keep the dog out of my yard- or I had scared it enough it didn't come back. Later the guy was complaining to me that the painters working at the restaurant next door to his cabin had pained his dog red. I was thinking if he kept his dog home he wouldn't have had that problem either.
Notice, that neither I nor the dog owners grovelled for the state to step in and solve our problem. I wonder if it would go the same way today.
So that's my confession.
.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Don't feel bad about putting bullies in their place
I never want to make people feel bad about things they didn't choose, or things they did choose which are not harming others.
I'm not saying I have never said anything racist, sexist, or mean. I have.
And I feel bad about it, and I intend to not repeat that behavior.
But I don't feel bad about calling people on the carpet for doing evil things. Not all opinions or choices are equally valid, and if your opinions or choices lead to behavior which violates the property or Rightful Liberty of another, you need to feel bad about it.
.
I'm not saying I have never said anything racist, sexist, or mean. I have.
And I feel bad about it, and I intend to not repeat that behavior.
But I don't feel bad about calling people on the carpet for doing evil things. Not all opinions or choices are equally valid, and if your opinions or choices lead to behavior which violates the property or Rightful Liberty of another, you need to feel bad about it.
.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Late!
My Clovis News Journal column will be posted late. The newspaper's site is offline due to a cyberattack/virus. I'll post the link as soon as I can.
The column is in the paper, with another of those headlines that seems completely divorced from the content of the column. Sigh...
The column is in the paper, with another of those headlines that seems completely divorced from the content of the column. Sigh...
Thursday, July 09, 2015
"Politically incorrect"? Or something more hilarious?
Most people who believe they are being "politically incorrect" are actually just being political- and are also incorrect.
And many of them feel very smug while doing so.
It's sort of funny to watch.
.
And many of them feel very smug while doing so.
It's sort of funny to watch.
.
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
The answers not offered
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I recently took another of those quizzes (probably used by NSA goons to get you to self-incriminate, but at this point, who cares?).
It was titled Can We Identify Your Age Based On Your Political Opinions? I usually just think "No. No you can't" but I took it anyway.
It missed my age by a long shot, but that's based on not being able to choose the right answers on anything.
I thought I would write the answers I would choose to the questions they ask, to be a little more accurate.
Here goes:
#1- "The rich should pay a higher tax rate than the middle class"
No, everyone should pay the same: 0%
#2- "Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified"
There's no such thing as "international law" unless it is Natural Law, and military action which defies Natural Law is never justified, but is always evil.
#3- "Gay marriage should be legal"
No one has the right to regulate marriage by "law".
#4- "Abortion should be illegal"
I don't believe in "laws" against anything. If something is wrong (an initiation of force or violation of property), stop those doing it. Yourself. There are only two types of "law"- the unnecessary and the harmful.
#5- "Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns"
Where to start? Well, no one has the right to forbid anyone from carrying any weapon, openly or concealed, regardless of the person's history of complying with "laws" or not, and without regard for where a person was born or what government bullies claim the "authority" to rob and control them.
#6- "Healthcare is the responsibility of the government"
Ummm.... no. Their only responsibility (if any) is to not be evil by preventing anyone from finding and making arrangements for whatever kind of healthcare they want. This is why the DEA, FDA, and various medicine/doctor rationing scams are abominable.
#7- "Marijuana should be legal"
Again, no one has the right to make "laws" against a plant- any plant- nor to tell you what medicines or chemicals you are allowed to put into your body.
#8- "Government regulation of businesses probably does more harm than good"
"Probably"? There's no "probably" about it. No one has the right to interfere in people's trades. Not even "for your own good". That is socialism and harms the business and the customers- and probably ends up harming the customer the most.
#9- "A country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment"
A "country" can't do anything. People do. I do think soiling your own nest is an incredibly foolish and short-sighted behavior. But "whatever it takes" could include killing off all the humans, if someone with that power decides that's what it would take. I don't litter. I pick up trash constantly. I pollute as little as I possibly can, and avoid the use of certain chemicals. And I still think "environmental laws" are counterproductive and stupid.
#10- "It is not necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values"
Nothing could be more obvious. Some of the least moral people I have ever met believe in God. And most of them support the hideous evil of "The State" with fervor. That doesn't mean that not believing in God/god/gods leads to good behavior, either. The things seem completely unrelated in my experience.
#11- "The growing number of immigrants from other countries threaten our values and customs"
Not sure who this "our" is. If your values can be threatened by the presence of people with different values, then your values are apparently worthless. No one else threatens my values. Now, maybe you could get introduced to new customs, and decide you enjoy them and would like to participate. I don't see how this can be considered a threat, either. If you don't want to whack piƱatas at a kid's birthday party, don't. And, if it seems I am picking on one particular group of "immigrants" with that comment, it is only because they are the ones generally being disparaged by the borderists.
#12- "Everyone has it in their power to succeed"
Probably not. We are all born different and have different abilities and talents. Some people are more prone to success- even taking individual strengths into account. Don't erect "laws" and regulations to ensure failure in more people who might otherwise succeed.
#13- "Sometimes citizens must give up some privacy to be protected from terrorism"
If that's the case, it's a good case against lowering yourself to the status of "citizen", which is synonymous with "slave" in my mind. But, exactly how does behaving as a terrorist "protect" anyone from terrorism? Aren't you just becoming what you tell people you are protecting them from? Of course you are. I would rather risk the occasional act of "terrorism" than put up with bullies spying on my every move. Or, on the every move of my worst enemy. Not on my behalf.
#14- "Social welfare makes people too dependent on government and less accountable for themselves"
"Don't feed the wildlife. It would become dependent and lose the ability to fend for itself." How can this be true of wild animals and be not true about humans? If you get accustomed to being fed, housed, doctored, and policed, how will you ever learn to take responsibility for yourself? You won't. You'll become a domestic animal, farmed and used.
#15- "Capital punishment can sometimes be justified"
Not in my opinion. No government anywhere, ever, has been (or could be) honest enough to be trusted with the power of life or death. The "justice system" is a horrible joke, with juries routinely passing along the result the government employees desire- which is almost always some version of "guilty as charged".
The only ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge, not justice.
So, there you have it. A quiz with the right answers for me to choose, rather than the statist standard answers that assume a statist outlook.
.
I recently took another of those quizzes (probably used by NSA goons to get you to self-incriminate, but at this point, who cares?).
It was titled Can We Identify Your Age Based On Your Political Opinions? I usually just think "No. No you can't" but I took it anyway.
It missed my age by a long shot, but that's based on not being able to choose the right answers on anything.
I thought I would write the answers I would choose to the questions they ask, to be a little more accurate.
Here goes:
#1- "The rich should pay a higher tax rate than the middle class"
No, everyone should pay the same: 0%
#2- "Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified"
There's no such thing as "international law" unless it is Natural Law, and military action which defies Natural Law is never justified, but is always evil.
#3- "Gay marriage should be legal"
No one has the right to regulate marriage by "law".
#4- "Abortion should be illegal"
I don't believe in "laws" against anything. If something is wrong (an initiation of force or violation of property), stop those doing it. Yourself. There are only two types of "law"- the unnecessary and the harmful.
#5- "Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns"
Where to start? Well, no one has the right to forbid anyone from carrying any weapon, openly or concealed, regardless of the person's history of complying with "laws" or not, and without regard for where a person was born or what government bullies claim the "authority" to rob and control them.
#6- "Healthcare is the responsibility of the government"
Ummm.... no. Their only responsibility (if any) is to not be evil by preventing anyone from finding and making arrangements for whatever kind of healthcare they want. This is why the DEA, FDA, and various medicine/doctor rationing scams are abominable.
#7- "Marijuana should be legal"
Again, no one has the right to make "laws" against a plant- any plant- nor to tell you what medicines or chemicals you are allowed to put into your body.
#8- "Government regulation of businesses probably does more harm than good"
"Probably"? There's no "probably" about it. No one has the right to interfere in people's trades. Not even "for your own good". That is socialism and harms the business and the customers- and probably ends up harming the customer the most.
#9- "A country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment"
A "country" can't do anything. People do. I do think soiling your own nest is an incredibly foolish and short-sighted behavior. But "whatever it takes" could include killing off all the humans, if someone with that power decides that's what it would take. I don't litter. I pick up trash constantly. I pollute as little as I possibly can, and avoid the use of certain chemicals. And I still think "environmental laws" are counterproductive and stupid.
#10- "It is not necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values"
Nothing could be more obvious. Some of the least moral people I have ever met believe in God. And most of them support the hideous evil of "The State" with fervor. That doesn't mean that not believing in God/god/gods leads to good behavior, either. The things seem completely unrelated in my experience.
#11- "The growing number of immigrants from other countries threaten our values and customs"
Not sure who this "our" is. If your values can be threatened by the presence of people with different values, then your values are apparently worthless. No one else threatens my values. Now, maybe you could get introduced to new customs, and decide you enjoy them and would like to participate. I don't see how this can be considered a threat, either. If you don't want to whack piƱatas at a kid's birthday party, don't. And, if it seems I am picking on one particular group of "immigrants" with that comment, it is only because they are the ones generally being disparaged by the borderists.
#12- "Everyone has it in their power to succeed"
Probably not. We are all born different and have different abilities and talents. Some people are more prone to success- even taking individual strengths into account. Don't erect "laws" and regulations to ensure failure in more people who might otherwise succeed.
#13- "Sometimes citizens must give up some privacy to be protected from terrorism"
If that's the case, it's a good case against lowering yourself to the status of "citizen", which is synonymous with "slave" in my mind. But, exactly how does behaving as a terrorist "protect" anyone from terrorism? Aren't you just becoming what you tell people you are protecting them from? Of course you are. I would rather risk the occasional act of "terrorism" than put up with bullies spying on my every move. Or, on the every move of my worst enemy. Not on my behalf.
#14- "Social welfare makes people too dependent on government and less accountable for themselves"
"Don't feed the wildlife. It would become dependent and lose the ability to fend for itself." How can this be true of wild animals and be not true about humans? If you get accustomed to being fed, housed, doctored, and policed, how will you ever learn to take responsibility for yourself? You won't. You'll become a domestic animal, farmed and used.
#15- "Capital punishment can sometimes be justified"
Not in my opinion. No government anywhere, ever, has been (or could be) honest enough to be trusted with the power of life or death. The "justice system" is a horrible joke, with juries routinely passing along the result the government employees desire- which is almost always some version of "guilty as charged".
The only ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge, not justice.
So, there you have it. A quiz with the right answers for me to choose, rather than the statist standard answers that assume a statist outlook.
.
Love Gov
This is a video series I recommend- from Independent Institute. It's funny and truthful.
M only quibble is when they talk about government debt putting an individual (besides the government employees who actually took on the debt) into debt. Not my debt, and not yours either.
Watch all 5 episodes. Really. Number 5 was my favorite, but they are all good.
.
M only quibble is when they talk about government debt putting an individual (besides the government employees who actually took on the debt) into debt. Not my debt, and not yours either.
Watch all 5 episodes. Really. Number 5 was my favorite, but they are all good.
.
Don't hire bad guys for something you should do
I have no interest in sending cops after anyone for anything.
If someone is doing something bad- aggression or property violation- and needs to be stopped, stop them.
Don't add to the wrong by allowing a gang to exist on theft and aggression to (supposedly) "fight" theft and aggression. That's just insane.
.
If someone is doing something bad- aggression or property violation- and needs to be stopped, stop them.
Don't add to the wrong by allowing a gang to exist on theft and aggression to (supposedly) "fight" theft and aggression. That's just insane.
.
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
City councils radically un-American
City councils radically un-American
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 5, 2015. This is the repeatedly rejected one. The version you'll see at the newspaper site is the editor's version- which really isn't much different, but some. I'll probably find a way to post- somewhere- the original version, along with the reworked one which was rejected that I will post here in its entirety in a month.)
Through observation over my adult life- and especially lately- I have come to a conclusion: city councils are the realm of the petty megalomaniac. Need proof? The publicly stated goal of one such gang in the area recently was to plot to impose "enforceable rules that all residents could be held to".
That city council's stated goal is a sad, perverted goal; harmful and radically anti-American.
It was triggered when some people didn't beg them for permission, and pay the demanded bribe (which is dishonestly called a "permit"), before improving their own property in a way which harmed absolutely no one, and in a way many others have done before.
The only rule needed doesn't have to be written: don't violate the property of others. Nor does it need to be made enforceable. Defend your own property from those who try to violate it. I'll even help.
The only real danger most property owners ever face comes from those who imagine they have the right to enforce rules to control everyone else's property... and their eager quislings. It's that dangerous, superstitious belief in "authority" again.
A legitimate rule would apply only to government employees: "You will not violate, under color of law, the choice of others as to how to use their own property, nor steal property in the name of taxation, permits, and fines".
If any city council wants to legitimize itself, it could abolish all its made-up rules and become nothing more than a social club. It could then make all the rules it wants between its members. That path leads to no glorification or rush of power, though.
Do you consider ObamaCare a problem? It can't damage your rights as badly as local busybodies. You encounter them every day, whereas the vermin in Washington DC or your state capital don't generally notice you unless you first seek them out.
Property codes are not needed. Not everything needs to be controlled. We are fast approaching the day when everything not forbidden is mandatory. And I, for one, refuse to play along.
I don't want you committing enforcement of property-violating rules against my neighbors. I don't want you enforcing your twisted notion of "the common good".
It's time to wrest control of our private property back from those who believe they have a right to make up rules which violate us to feed their communistic hunger. It's time to tell them to knock it off and go away. North Korea seems a good fit for those who lust for ever more government control over every aspect of their neighbors' lives.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 5, 2015. This is the repeatedly rejected one. The version you'll see at the newspaper site is the editor's version- which really isn't much different, but some. I'll probably find a way to post- somewhere- the original version, along with the reworked one which was rejected that I will post here in its entirety in a month.)
Through observation over my adult life- and especially lately- I have come to a conclusion: city councils are the realm of the petty megalomaniac. Need proof? The publicly stated goal of one such gang in the area recently was to plot to impose "enforceable rules that all residents could be held to".
That city council's stated goal is a sad, perverted goal; harmful and radically anti-American.
It was triggered when some people didn't beg them for permission, and pay the demanded bribe (which is dishonestly called a "permit"), before improving their own property in a way which harmed absolutely no one, and in a way many others have done before.
The only rule needed doesn't have to be written: don't violate the property of others. Nor does it need to be made enforceable. Defend your own property from those who try to violate it. I'll even help.
The only real danger most property owners ever face comes from those who imagine they have the right to enforce rules to control everyone else's property... and their eager quislings. It's that dangerous, superstitious belief in "authority" again.
A legitimate rule would apply only to government employees: "You will not violate, under color of law, the choice of others as to how to use their own property, nor steal property in the name of taxation, permits, and fines".
If any city council wants to legitimize itself, it could abolish all its made-up rules and become nothing more than a social club. It could then make all the rules it wants between its members. That path leads to no glorification or rush of power, though.
Do you consider ObamaCare a problem? It can't damage your rights as badly as local busybodies. You encounter them every day, whereas the vermin in Washington DC or your state capital don't generally notice you unless you first seek them out.
Property codes are not needed. Not everything needs to be controlled. We are fast approaching the day when everything not forbidden is mandatory. And I, for one, refuse to play along.
I don't want you committing enforcement of property-violating rules against my neighbors. I don't want you enforcing your twisted notion of "the common good".
It's time to wrest control of our private property back from those who believe they have a right to make up rules which violate us to feed their communistic hunger. It's time to tell them to knock it off and go away. North Korea seems a good fit for those who lust for ever more government control over every aspect of their neighbors' lives.
.
The government lamprey
Picture society- or even the individual human- as a fish.
"Government"- or, each and every individual with a government "job"- is a lamprey.
A devastating parasite feeding on the productive people. In no way "necessary" for the well-being of the society or individual they feed off of.
"Government" is piggybacking on civilization. It is nothing but a useless feeder, which has somehow convinced its victims that it is the one feeding and supporting them.
.
"Government"- or, each and every individual with a government "job"- is a lamprey.
You, supporting the local cop/teacher/judge/"government" employee
The consequences of your support
A devastating parasite feeding on the productive people. In no way "necessary" for the well-being of the society or individual they feed off of.
"Government" is piggybacking on civilization. It is nothing but a useless feeder, which has somehow convinced its victims that it is the one feeding and supporting them.
.
Monday, July 06, 2015
Truth will make itself known
Lysander Spooner:
Truth will always be independently discovered. Over and over again. Until it finally becomes something "everyone knows".
“If two individuals enter into a contract to commit trespass, theft, robbery or murder upon a third, the contract is unlawful and void, simply because it is a contract to violate natural justice, or men’s natural rights.” (h/t Bill Buppert)
Which is what I have been saying:
"No contract which by its very nature violates Rightful Liberty can ever be valid. You are not obligated to abide by it and you are not a bad guy merely by breaking it." (link)
I had never read this quote of Spooner's before. Yet I came up with the same principle simply by thinking about a question. I have seen the same thing happen so many times, with so many other ideas.
Truth will always be independently discovered. Over and over again. Until it finally becomes something "everyone knows".
.
Sunday, July 05, 2015
This blog is biased!
This blog is biased against slavery, theft, the superstitious belief in "authority", bullies, and anti-liberty bigots.
This blog is biased toward Rightful Liberty, responsibility, and individualism.
I never claim to be "unbiased" like some liars in the "mainstream media" do.
Every source of information is biased, as is every opinion (which seems so self evident it shouldn't need to be said) published anywhere.
If you want "unbiased" go find a sasquatch riding a unicorn and ask him. Otherwise, figure out what the bias is, and read with that in mind.
.
This blog is biased toward Rightful Liberty, responsibility, and individualism.
I never claim to be "unbiased" like some liars in the "mainstream media" do.
Every source of information is biased, as is every opinion (which seems so self evident it shouldn't need to be said) published anywhere.
If you want "unbiased" go find a sasquatch riding a unicorn and ask him. Otherwise, figure out what the bias is, and read with that in mind.
.
Saturday, July 04, 2015
Happy Liberty Porn Day!
"Independence Day", more commonly known as simply "The 4th of July", is to actual independence as porn is to an actual sexual relationship.
It is a simulated substitute for the real act. The act of shooting and blowing up tyrants and their enforcers.
Shooting off fireworks- especially "in accordance with local laws"- has nothing to do with the act of rebellion to government that "Independence Day" is supposed to commemorate. It doesn't do anything for Rightful Liberty. It is a pathetic substitute for the real thing.
Yes, fireworks are pretty. And sometimes awe inspiring. And killing tyrants and their enforcers is messy, and unpleasant, and innocent people will inevitably get killed in retaliation. "Independence Day" is a cuddly alternative to the real spirit of independence.
But I miss the spirit of people willing to send tyrants and their hired bullies, either to another corner of the globe, or to the grave.
Until or unless "Independence Day" becomes about independence, I'll think of it as "Independents' Day" instead.
.
It is a simulated substitute for the real act. The act of shooting and blowing up tyrants and their enforcers.
Shooting off fireworks- especially "in accordance with local laws"- has nothing to do with the act of rebellion to government that "Independence Day" is supposed to commemorate. It doesn't do anything for Rightful Liberty. It is a pathetic substitute for the real thing.
Yes, fireworks are pretty. And sometimes awe inspiring. And killing tyrants and their enforcers is messy, and unpleasant, and innocent people will inevitably get killed in retaliation. "Independence Day" is a cuddly alternative to the real spirit of independence.
But I miss the spirit of people willing to send tyrants and their hired bullies, either to another corner of the globe, or to the grave.
Until or unless "Independence Day" becomes about independence, I'll think of it as "Independents' Day" instead.
.
Friday, July 03, 2015
Bully
bul·ly
Ėbo͝olÄ/
noun
1. a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
synonyms: persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, tormentor, intimidator
verbHow can anyone not see how this applies to politicians, bureaucrats, and cops? It's EXACTLY and precisely what they are and how they operate. You don't even have to clarify, change, or redefine any part of that definition- which I got directly off of Google.
1. use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
Don't be a bully. If you work for "government", please quit. You can't be a good person and hold a "government job"- even if you somehow manage to not be a bully.
.
Thursday, July 02, 2015
Theft, enforced with death threats
If there isn't an individual I can point to and say "He was killed strictly because he didn't pay a tax", does that mean "taxes" are not enforced by the threat of death?
Of course not.
The penalty for violating any "law" is always death, even if it no one has (yet) been murdered for violating each and every "law" there is. But that's simply because most people submit before it gets to the point of murder.
Make no mistake, bullies calling themselves "government" will keep escalating the violence until you comply or die. Most people comply before they die. The ones who don't get called bad names by the quislings among us, and are said to "deserve it"- and the fact that they died due to enforcement of "laws" will be covered over and ignored.
Remove the threat and how many "laws" would you obey? The threat to "arrest" me is meaningless if I can refuse to be kidnapped, and be left alone after refusing. It is only the knowledge that the vermin of the Blue Line Gang will keep escalating the situation to the point of murder that makes the threat of "arrest" a motivation.
I know the "penalty" for stepping onto the surface of the moon, unprotected by a specialized pressure suit, is also death. No one has ever suffered that fate in the whole history of human existence. Does that mean the threat is imaginary? Not at all.
Ignore reality if it makes you happy, but don't be surprised that your cries, when consequences come to call, go ignored.
.
Of course not.
The penalty for violating any "law" is always death, even if it no one has (yet) been murdered for violating each and every "law" there is. But that's simply because most people submit before it gets to the point of murder.
Make no mistake, bullies calling themselves "government" will keep escalating the violence until you comply or die. Most people comply before they die. The ones who don't get called bad names by the quislings among us, and are said to "deserve it"- and the fact that they died due to enforcement of "laws" will be covered over and ignored.
Remove the threat and how many "laws" would you obey? The threat to "arrest" me is meaningless if I can refuse to be kidnapped, and be left alone after refusing. It is only the knowledge that the vermin of the Blue Line Gang will keep escalating the situation to the point of murder that makes the threat of "arrest" a motivation.
I know the "penalty" for stepping onto the surface of the moon, unprotected by a specialized pressure suit, is also death. No one has ever suffered that fate in the whole history of human existence. Does that mean the threat is imaginary? Not at all.
Ignore reality if it makes you happy, but don't be surprised that your cries, when consequences come to call, go ignored.
.
Wednesday, July 01, 2015
Forever alone... Not
Am I alone in preferring to see the messiness of liberty rather than the enforced uniformity and conformity of tyranny?
No, I'm not.
Sometimes it seems that way, though.
It's just that those who are on the other side- the anti-liberty bigots- are so much more numerous. They probably have about the same number of loudmouths as the pro-liberty folk, but they have a much larger background chorus of sycophants and supporters.
It doesn't matter that most of those in the background chorus haven't ever considered where the things they automatically support lead. They don't want to think about it, "...and you're NOT going to make me!"
Someone once told them- or they were raised to believe- and that's all that matters. Anything to the contrary will be spat upon.
.
No, I'm not.
Sometimes it seems that way, though.
It's just that those who are on the other side- the anti-liberty bigots- are so much more numerous. They probably have about the same number of loudmouths as the pro-liberty folk, but they have a much larger background chorus of sycophants and supporters.
It doesn't matter that most of those in the background chorus haven't ever considered where the things they automatically support lead. They don't want to think about it, "...and you're NOT going to make me!"
Someone once told them- or they were raised to believe- and that's all that matters. Anything to the contrary will be spat upon.
.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Self defense a primary human right
Self defense a primary human right
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 29, 2015)
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 29, 2015)
If someone is violating your personal rights — through aggression or by violating your property — you have the right to stop them.
Nothing, no justifications or excuses, can abolish or alter your right to defense of self or property. The right of defense is the primary human right; all others come from that one.
Aggression is the act of committing, or threatening, violence against someone who isn't currently using violence against you nor violating your property. The defining characteristic of libertarians is that they realize they have no right to use aggression. Self defense, even with violence, is not aggression; the other person started it.
If someone is doing something which doesn't violate your person or property, but still offends or bothers you in some way, how do you deal with it? There are a couple of very different ways people approach this situation, which highlight the difference of the libertarian response.
The first way to deal with this is childish, even barbaric, and is by far the most common way: you pretend to have the power-- or worse, the "authority"-- to control how other people live their lives, and you make up "laws" to use against them if they continue doing what you don't like. Using this tool, you violate their right to live unmolested; you violate their life, liberty, or property-- probably feeling righteous while doing so.
The other way is to try to convince them to change their ways, and if that doesn't work, as long as they don't become aggressive or try to violate your property, you walk away and mind your own business.
I know this isn't good enough for most people. It doesn't feel satisfying to them. They want a way to force others to stop doing what they don't want them to do-- even when they have no right to do so. They simply can't abide leaving people to live according to their own wishes if they find those wishes offensive in some way. They will invoke the "common good", "the children", "community standards", and all manner of justifications for doing the inexcusable. It's still wrong. You have no right to rule other people, and using force against non-aggressive people turns you into a thug.
Unless others are violating your person or property you have no right to control their actions-- and since you can't delegate a right you don't have, since it doesn't exist, you can't send enforcers, bureaucrats, or politicians after them without becoming the problem.
Do you value your rights to life, liberty, and property enough to respect the identical and equal rights of everyone else? Or do you intend to rule?
Nothing, no justifications or excuses, can abolish or alter your right to defense of self or property. The right of defense is the primary human right; all others come from that one.
Aggression is the act of committing, or threatening, violence against someone who isn't currently using violence against you nor violating your property. The defining characteristic of libertarians is that they realize they have no right to use aggression. Self defense, even with violence, is not aggression; the other person started it.
If someone is doing something which doesn't violate your person or property, but still offends or bothers you in some way, how do you deal with it? There are a couple of very different ways people approach this situation, which highlight the difference of the libertarian response.
The first way to deal with this is childish, even barbaric, and is by far the most common way: you pretend to have the power-- or worse, the "authority"-- to control how other people live their lives, and you make up "laws" to use against them if they continue doing what you don't like. Using this tool, you violate their right to live unmolested; you violate their life, liberty, or property-- probably feeling righteous while doing so.
The other way is to try to convince them to change their ways, and if that doesn't work, as long as they don't become aggressive or try to violate your property, you walk away and mind your own business.
I know this isn't good enough for most people. It doesn't feel satisfying to them. They want a way to force others to stop doing what they don't want them to do-- even when they have no right to do so. They simply can't abide leaving people to live according to their own wishes if they find those wishes offensive in some way. They will invoke the "common good", "the children", "community standards", and all manner of justifications for doing the inexcusable. It's still wrong. You have no right to rule other people, and using force against non-aggressive people turns you into a thug.
Unless others are violating your person or property you have no right to control their actions-- and since you can't delegate a right you don't have, since it doesn't exist, you can't send enforcers, bureaucrats, or politicians after them without becoming the problem.
Do you value your rights to life, liberty, and property enough to respect the identical and equal rights of everyone else? Or do you intend to rule?
.
"Can't we all just be civil?"
Well, apparently not. It's not that I'm unwilling, but when someone gets into their head that they are entitled to any bit of my life, liberty, or property- and believes it's OK to violate me as long as they do it "legally" and send others to pull the trigger for them- then all this "civility" is suicidal.
You can't soft-peddle what it is they are advocating doing to you.
You need to call a spade a spade. Don't fall into the trap of using the euphemisms which have been carefully crafted to hide the nature of their monstrous behavior. Don't be so careful to not offend their delicate feelings that you sacrifice good people on their altar.
Some things really are so bad that you shouldn't be civil about them. Slavery- of any sort- is one of those things. Those calling for the enslavement of others are horrible people- and that is all that statism is.
I'm sorry if criticizing a statist for their beliefs makes them feel bad. Wait- no I'm not. If you believe horrible, harmful, nasty things you need to feel bad. Your feelings should be hurt.
For many things in life, you don't need to pick sides. Pizza isn't objectively "better than" enchiladas. But liberty is better than slavery. If you are an advocate of slavery you need to feel bad about it. If you try to lie about where your beliefs lead, you need to be shamed.
I get really tired of statists trying to insist that it's "just a matter of opinions", and everyone's opinions are equally valid. No, they absolutely are not.
If you support government, you support slavery. You should be ashamed.
.
You can't soft-peddle what it is they are advocating doing to you.
You need to call a spade a spade. Don't fall into the trap of using the euphemisms which have been carefully crafted to hide the nature of their monstrous behavior. Don't be so careful to not offend their delicate feelings that you sacrifice good people on their altar.
Some things really are so bad that you shouldn't be civil about them. Slavery- of any sort- is one of those things. Those calling for the enslavement of others are horrible people- and that is all that statism is.
I'm sorry if criticizing a statist for their beliefs makes them feel bad. Wait- no I'm not. If you believe horrible, harmful, nasty things you need to feel bad. Your feelings should be hurt.
For many things in life, you don't need to pick sides. Pizza isn't objectively "better than" enchiladas. But liberty is better than slavery. If you are an advocate of slavery you need to feel bad about it. If you try to lie about where your beliefs lead, you need to be shamed.
I get really tired of statists trying to insist that it's "just a matter of opinions", and everyone's opinions are equally valid. No, they absolutely are not.
If you support government, you support slavery. You should be ashamed.
.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Gay marriage, collective punishment, and licenses
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Those who argue against the supreme courtjesters' "marriage equality" decision on religious grounds confuse me.
They say things such as "god will not be mocked", and "expect god's judgment" (to fall on us all for this ruling). Yes, I have actually seen both posted over this.
Does this mean they believe their god is evil and engages in collective punishment just like some nasty kinderprison "teacher"?
Because, make no mistake, collective punishment IS evil. It is punishing the innocent along with the guilty because the innocent failed to... what? Kill the guilty person as soon as the offence was discovered? And because it's too hard for the punisher to sort them out?
The guilty are guilty. And, if you haven't initiated force or violated property rights you aren't guilty. Good people understand the difference.
But, ignoring that, I realize a lot of religious rules involve things that are "immoral" (as judged by that religion) but not unethical- they don't involve aggression or rights violations. Still collective punishment for even these things- within the religious community who believes those particular rules- seems twisted.
If I am in a room with some number of people, including an unknown murderer, would you believe it is right to kill everyone in order to "get" the guilty person?
What if you were supposedly omniscient and knew exactly who the murderer was, but chose to kill everyone instead of singling out the bad guy, even though your omnipotence would allow that? What if you kill everyone because they knew who the bad guy was and chose to not kill him themselves? I don't see how that can be seen as something to emulate or honor.
What if it's not a murderer, but someone who chose to eat shellfish?
Now, you can argue against the decision on the grounds that government has no business regulating private consensual agreements, and I'd agree.
I still understand, somewhat, the joy felt by those who don't like being meddled with by bullies using the excuse of "law". I'd love it if the supreme courtjesters declared ALL "gun control" illegal and said it was all immediately null and void (fat chance of those loudmouthed cowards doing that). I like it when the chance of being violated for living in liberty goes down, for whatever reason it does.
I still think it's silly and harmful to buy a license to do what no one else has any right to control. And I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to expand the rights violations to everyone, rather than simply ending them.
It's not that gays have a right to get marriage licenses; no one has the right to demand such, nor to claim a marriage is valid only with government approval. That's the difference between a lesser violation and liberty.
.
Those who argue against the supreme courtjesters' "marriage equality" decision on religious grounds confuse me.
They say things such as "god will not be mocked", and "expect god's judgment" (to fall on us all for this ruling). Yes, I have actually seen both posted over this.
Does this mean they believe their god is evil and engages in collective punishment just like some nasty kinderprison "teacher"?
Because, make no mistake, collective punishment IS evil. It is punishing the innocent along with the guilty because the innocent failed to... what? Kill the guilty person as soon as the offence was discovered? And because it's too hard for the punisher to sort them out?
The guilty are guilty. And, if you haven't initiated force or violated property rights you aren't guilty. Good people understand the difference.
But, ignoring that, I realize a lot of religious rules involve things that are "immoral" (as judged by that religion) but not unethical- they don't involve aggression or rights violations. Still collective punishment for even these things- within the religious community who believes those particular rules- seems twisted.
If I am in a room with some number of people, including an unknown murderer, would you believe it is right to kill everyone in order to "get" the guilty person?
What if you were supposedly omniscient and knew exactly who the murderer was, but chose to kill everyone instead of singling out the bad guy, even though your omnipotence would allow that? What if you kill everyone because they knew who the bad guy was and chose to not kill him themselves? I don't see how that can be seen as something to emulate or honor.
What if it's not a murderer, but someone who chose to eat shellfish?
Now, you can argue against the decision on the grounds that government has no business regulating private consensual agreements, and I'd agree.
I still understand, somewhat, the joy felt by those who don't like being meddled with by bullies using the excuse of "law". I'd love it if the supreme courtjesters declared ALL "gun control" illegal and said it was all immediately null and void (fat chance of those loudmouthed cowards doing that). I like it when the chance of being violated for living in liberty goes down, for whatever reason it does.
I still think it's silly and harmful to buy a license to do what no one else has any right to control. And I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to expand the rights violations to everyone, rather than simply ending them.
It's not that gays have a right to get marriage licenses; no one has the right to demand such, nor to claim a marriage is valid only with government approval. That's the difference between a lesser violation and liberty.
.
An update
I found out a bit of interesting information about my previous "rejected" column.
The woman whose outlaw carport started the whole mess was quoted in the paper as...
The woman whose outlaw carport started the whole mess was quoted in the paper as...
 |
| "Mrs. __ stressed that folks in the city should get building permits for any construction they do." |
Only, she says she never said any such thing.
Is this a case of the paper saying something that fits with their agenda, rather than with the truth? Or, did she really say that to the bullies and is now denying it?
.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Grab some popcorn
When I see someone do something stupid, I usually try to bite my tongue.
After the third time of seeing them make the same mistake, that gets a lot harder. In fact, I usually end up saying something. And it is almost never appreciated.
But, I care about people. I care about their life, liberty, property, and well-being. I'm not going to aggress "for their own good", but I will say something. How they choose to respond and what they choose to do about it are none of my business.
And most people are committed to their course, no matter what. I wince and back off.
But, sometimes, with certain people, I get tempted to grab some popcorn and watch the show. You know it's going to be a re-run, but watching a train wreck you've seen several times is still captivating.
That's how it is watching statists. Especially when they believe they have come up with their "gotcha", or when they suddenly think of a justification they aren't aware has been tried (and failed) for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. I hate to see them hurt themselves, but they are so committed to self-destruction that you probably aren't going to alter their course. Warn them, then sit back and watch the show.
.
After the third time of seeing them make the same mistake, that gets a lot harder. In fact, I usually end up saying something. And it is almost never appreciated.
But, I care about people. I care about their life, liberty, property, and well-being. I'm not going to aggress "for their own good", but I will say something. How they choose to respond and what they choose to do about it are none of my business.
And most people are committed to their course, no matter what. I wince and back off.
But, sometimes, with certain people, I get tempted to grab some popcorn and watch the show. You know it's going to be a re-run, but watching a train wreck you've seen several times is still captivating.
That's how it is watching statists. Especially when they believe they have come up with their "gotcha", or when they suddenly think of a justification they aren't aware has been tried (and failed) for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. I hate to see them hurt themselves, but they are so committed to self-destruction that you probably aren't going to alter their course. Warn them, then sit back and watch the show.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)