How to get more guns...

...under any confiscatory scheme

Inferior substitutions

(Previously posted to Patreon)

It's interesting to me how words get used to mean something they don't mean.

I always thought mums were flowers- specifically, Chrysanthemums. I just discovered this year that "mums" apparently don't mean the flower anymore, but a customized cluttered ribbon thing you can wear on your jacket to some sportsball event. Yes, I am out of the loop where sportsball rituals are concerned.

Then, there is "fleece". Fleece is wool, like a wool blanket or a sheepskin with the wool still attached. But now when most people talk of fleece, they mean something made of fuzzy polyester. Yuck.

The same goes for "freedom".

Besides confusing it for liberty, they get confused about what it is altogether.

Some particularly nasty politicians claim it means doing what government bullies decide you will do.

Others mean they can do anything to you they feel like, and you are obligated to put up with it without doing anything about it. Their "freedom" goes only one direction.

Some see the slavery inherent in the police state and cheer it as a manifestation of freedom. TSA gropedowns = Freedom at work!

You can use a word to mean whatever it means to you (we all do that anyway), but it helps if you define your word, especially when you use it to mean something it clearly has never meant before.

You have the "freedom" to pin a "mum" to your "fleece" sportsball jacket and get a gropedown before entering the stadium. Hooray for freedom!

.

Request: history book suggestions

I had a request for more information; inspired, I believe, by this older post: History? Their-story.

What are your favorite books on history- especially pertaining to stateless societies?

What about reading suggestions (particularly in book form) about other more liberty-leaning societies- either past or present?

The world is full of books pushing the statist agenda- including all the books (history and otherwise) used in schools. We know how indispensable government employees believe their club to be. Let's get the other side for a change.

If anyone has suggestions, post them in the comments- it would be a good resource for the future.

Thank you!

.

Choosing poorly

Why would anyone choose evil?
Why choose aggression?
Who could believe it's OK to be a cop, military, mugger, or tax collector?
What kind of sick mind could justify that choice?

Some would say it's the lazy choice, but in most cases it is harder to be evil. I know, because I'm too lazy to bother with the trouble of being evil. I'd rather not make difficulties for myself on down the line- aggression will always do that.

Maybe short-sightedness could explain it. Evil looks easier right now, and if you don't consider the future (as I have my doubt about aggressors being able to do) you might not think about the consequences that could result.

Add greed to the short-sightedness and you might have some ethical homunculi believing evil is a good way to get ahead. If you look at those who are politically connected and evil (but I repeat myself), it sure looks like it works. But you never know when your flavor of statism will suddenly go out of style and you'll find yourself against a wall, unable to be comforted by your bank balance.

In the world of fiction, evil is often glamorous. Politicians, cops, and robbers look flashy and cool. People forget that this is fiction. The real world isn't that way. Even if the glamour does sometimes rub off onto the real world bad guys from association with their fictional kin.

I'll always prefer those who quietly choose to not be aggressors over those who believe they should be celebrated for being evil.

.

Let your conscience be your guide (Mike Vanderboegh)

No, I can't afford it. Yes, I've done it anyway.

What? Sent some money to Mike Vanderboegh.

I have had my disagreements with him over the years. Most I kept to myself (yes, I usually do that).

I find his appeals to religion to be a dead end where liberty is concerned- but that's just how I see it.

I find his enthusiastic support for the government's military to be horrifying and harmful to Rightful Liberty. But I understand where he is coming from (idealism, experiences, family) even if I think he is dangerously wrong to support the enemy's gunmen.

And, putting the Constitution on a pedestal... meh.

But... He has put a lot of work into uncovering things liberty lovers can use against the bad guys. And, often when it comes down to it, he mouths support for the part of the State he likes while pointing out the harm of the rest. Which comes out on top? Depends on which way you look at it.

On the whole I'd say he stands on the right side, and now that he is dying, I want to let him know I appreciate his efforts. Doing something real, now, means more than sending condolences to his widow or offering to pray for them. Or, that's how it looks from where I stand.

If you can, join me: georgemason1776@aol.com

.

When shooting first isn't aggression

I recently read this column: Shoot First: The Han Solo Principle, and found a lot to disagree with.

For example...

If a person is holding you at gunpoint, force has already been initiated and you are acting in self defense to shoot first. The shot was not the initiation of force- not aggression- holding you at gunpoint was. Stating the intention of killing you is the second initiation of force. Go ahead and shoot; you wouldn’t be initiating force.

By my reckoning Han didn’t break his contract with Jabba- government (The Empire) got in the way and prevented the completion of the deal. When government is around it does this. Jabba knew, as did Han. It is a risk of doing business. Jabba would have been justified in sending Greedo after the government employees who actually caused the problem, but as a cowardly gangster he chose what he thought was a safer target. It's what bullies do.

Then, as always, people who want to try to reserve the "right" to initiate force start reaching for what they see as holes in the principle.

Pollution is a violation of property rights, which may or may not be aggression. Some people consider violations of property rights aggression and some don’t- and it doesn’t matter either way. Aggression isn’t the only wrong. Don't take, destroy, or damage the property of others.

Those who fear liberty always try to use children to hide behind. This guy followed the script.

Children do not belong to parents- parents are responsible for children. There is a difference. By having a child you are agreeing to be responsible for a person until the rightful owner of that person- which can only be the self- is capable of taking over the responsibility.

And then, he did something really bizarre. He tried to use States, the imaginary god of the statists, to show why Zero Aggression "can't work" when applied to States. What?

When you try to apply principles to States like the US you are completely going off the map. States- actually those who maintain them- are aggressors by definition. They claim a monopoly on the use of force within their "borders"- and will murder to prop up the illusion. They “tax” under threat of death, they kidnap, murder, and violate human rights with every thing they do. Including when they bomb or invade individuals who were not personally responsible for an attack on the “US”. States do nothing without initiating force, since they can’t even exist without initiating force.

If you want to “reserve the right” to initiate force (a right which can’t exist), then why are you worrying about the details? Just go ahead and be an aggressor and accept the consequences.

.

Looking at cops realistically

I am not by any measure a cop lover.

I don't want them around, I resent being forced at gunpoint to pay for their "services", I think they cause crime (even when they aren't the ones committing it), and I certainly don't need them.

There can be no such thing as a good cop, because cops live off theft ("taxes") and they enforce counterfeit "laws" which are harmful to individual liberty and property rights. If they didn't do those things, they wouldn't be cops- once they do those things they can't be good... even if they are "nice".

So, no, I am not a fan of cops. Or any other gang members for that matter.

However, there have been times I defended individual cops who were being punished for things I don't believe anyone should be punished for. (Disclosure- I am not a fan of punishment anyway, since I see it as revenge and unrelated to justice.)

That's because, even if I tend to think cops should be held to a higher standard than people who aren't allowed to steal, molest, and murder- if it's not wrong for me or my neighbor to do something, it's not wrong for a cop to do it.

The flip side is, if it is OK for a cop to do it (wear his gun into the post office, for example), it is OK for you to do it.

No double standards.

.

Laws are unnecessary, ineffective

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 4, 2015)

If I had to come up with a short description of what differentiates libertarians from the rest of society, I might say while most worry about “what if”, libertarians focus on “what is”.

Those who believe in government, laws, and the state worry about “what if”. What if there were no stop signs? What if there were no law forbidding murder? What if someone cheats you out of money? What if people don’t make the right decision?

But consider what is.

Do stop signs actually stop cars? No. It's a choice made by each individual driver. I choose to stop at stop signs, not because there is a law ordering me to do so, but because I don't want to be in a wreck. You can choose what to do when you drive up to a stop sign, and there is no physical force there to take your choice away. If you approach a stop sign nothing can prevent you from driving on through, although it might be a bad habit to develop.

Would you commit murder if it weren't illegal? How many murders do you believe are prevented by laws forbidding it? Do you believe a mugger thinks about the law before shooting an uncooperative victim? Do you believe those who find themselves committing a crime of passion will stop when remembering the law?

If so, what other fantasies do you believe are real?

Laws don't do anything useful. They don't stop bad people or prevent tragedies. They only give enforcers the tools to molest people and trample liberty. They give an excuse to punish, instead of pursuing justice. Punishment doesn't even resemble justice, but is a childish substitute.

All this is an acceptance of what is, rather than imagining what if.

There are only two kinds of laws: the unnecessary and the harmful. Laws forbidding intentional harm to others are unnecessary, all others are harmful.

I understand better than you can imagine the wish to make bad things not happen. Believing government or laws can accomplish this is magical thinking; the belief in a real connection between a symbol, such as a law, and whatever the law addresses. This is the belief that rituals and chants can alter reality in defiance of the laws of nature. You might say this belief isn't hurting anyone, but is "doing nothing", but law and government are worse than doing nothing. They are harming you and your loved ones by hacking away at your liberty.

.

Anti-liberty bigots and their anti-gun "laws"

No.

That's it: my answer to the anti-liberty bigots who believe they can make up laws against guns.

Making up those "laws"- or enforcing them- is a crime, according to the Second Amendment. In case you don't understand what an amendment is, an amendment over-rides the original document. That means even if the Constitution had once said government was allowed to make up rules concerning guns, the Second Amendment made that act a crime the instant it was adopted.

It doesn't matter how "sensible" or necessary you claim such "laws" to be.

Every politician who writes an anti-gun law is a criminal. A REAL criminal, not a fake criminal like people who don't pay taxes, sell raw milk, or smoke pot.

Any president who makes up executive orders concerning guns- other than directing all government employees to stop enforcing the countefeit anti-gun "laws" that infest America- is a criminal.

Every cop who enforces ANY anti-gun "law" is a criminal.

Every prosecutor who pursues someone on gun-related charges is a criminal.

Every judge who presides over a trial or sentencing of someone kidnapped (an act euphemistically called an "arrest") for breaking one of these illegal anti-gun "laws" is a criminal.

Government has zero right to outlaw gun possession in the buildings it built with stolen money- called "taxes". Doing so is criminal.

If it isn't wrong for a cop to carry a gun somewhere, in some manner, it isn't wrong for you to do the same. Enforcing "laws" to the contrary is criminal. Period.

But, all of that's actually small potatoes compared to the real issue.

The right to own and to carry weapons, everywhere you go, in any way you see fit, without ever asking permission from anyone is a fundamental human right. It existed before the very first bully dreamed up the superstition of "authority" and started telling others how to live. It will still exist after the very last government crumbles and dies. No one can make that right go away. No one has the right to demand a permit or otherwise place limits on this right. Rights can either be respected or violated- there is no third choice. Anyone who violates any right is a bully and deserves the fate of all bullies. Don't be a bully.

Don't comply with bullies. Resist them, oppose them, and if they attack you, fight back with everything you've got.

No to the anti-liberty bigots and their anti-gun "laws". Just, no.

.

Cowardly, criminal, post offices

The local post office is going full potato.

They've always had that ubiquitous "no guns in the post office" sign on the bulletin board inside, but now have posted another one beside the entrance.

I guess they are scared of that tiny loosening of the draconian anti-gun "laws" in Texas, where those who beg and pay government for a permit to exercise an inalienable right to own and to carry, everywhere they go, in any manner they see fit, any type of weapon they choose, without ever asking permission of anyone, can maybe begin to openly carry a gun (depending on the whims of local badge bullies who might just murder you anyway and say "oops") in ways very slightly less infringed upon.

Hate to tell you, post office, but as a government facility it is a serious crime for you to pretend to have the "authority" to ban guns on your premises. That's what the Second Amendment says and what it means, and since government employees are the only ones the Bill of Rights applies to- by forbidding certain things you might want to do to the individual rights of people- you are a criminal by doing this anyway. Of course, you won't care because you'll continue to get away with it.

Until the day you don't.

And it won't be at my hands, so don't misconstrue this as a threat. But, it is history: those who rely of the protection of government always have a nasty surprise coming when the winds change. And you, as an anti-liberty bigot, are on the wrong side- the losing side- of history.

.

Who would do such a horrible thing?

(Previously posted to Patreon)

What is your gut reaction when you see a "No guns" sign?

Do you think "Thank goodness! I'll be safe here!"

Or, do you instead recognize the facts of reality?

For me, it is like walking into the restroom of a fast food place and seeing a sign warning employees and customers to not wash their hands after relieving themselves.

Or a sign at the doctor's office saying "Please smoke".

A "no guns" sign is a declaration that your health and safety don't matter at all to the management.

It is an admission that a political agenda based upon superstitions and delusions (but I repeat myself) takes precedence over your life.

What kind of person would do that? Certainly no one you should associate with or spend money with.

.

The video blogs

I'd like to know what you think of the videos. Right now I'm just kind of playing around with them- getting a feel for it all.

Should I continue vlogging, or is it something I should have stayed away from altogether?

I know they are short- that is kind of the point. So many make these long video screeds- which can be very good- but I wonder how many people stay with them to the end. Especially people who might not already be on the side of liberty.

Like most of my blog posts, I intend to have stuff short enough that the point is made before the unsuspecting statist realizes what is going on and turns it off.

I realize my subject- and myself- are not for everyone.

Also, do you think it is better to have the transcript with the video, or just the video?

It is my intention- if nothing changes- to do a video or two every week. At least for a while.

If everyone hates them, that would be something changing to alter my plan.

.

The Oregon occupation and stand-off

The standoff situation at the National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Oregon, in support of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, is simple and tragic:

What you see is opposing groups of statists squaring off and making threats at each other.

And they are all operating under the same flag. The supposed patriots are waving the flag of those they claim to be upset with- because make no mistake: the US flag, "The Stars and Stripes", belongs to no one but the US federal government.

Maybe, just maybe, once upon a time it stood for something else, but if it did, that ended with the federal defeat of the secessionists in the 1860s. Now the "stars and Stripes" is strictly an anti-liberty symbol of Big Government. One unfortunately embraced by some people who are on the side of liberty. But, I doubt any of those people are participating in the situation in Oregon.

No, there it's just one flavor of statism against another flavor of statism, and they taste about the same to me.

But pro-liberty people will somehow be blamed along with the anti-establishment statists who are actually involved. I distance myself from them.

.

The fate of parasites

Pretending that cops and politicians are important to society- or worse, that they somehow define society-  is like pretending tapeworms define the person and that the person depends on them.

Parasites are parasites. Don't put them on a pedestal. Parasites are not in a symbiotic relationship with you- they harm you, but they can't exist without harming you. Letting them continue to feed off of you is the most destructive form of welfare.

Expel them and let them writhe on the ground, dry up, and die. It's more consideration than they have earned.

.

Mimicking aggressors

Here it is. Something new. A video blog post. Expect more to come.


.

Something big is in the works

Tomorrow look for something new here. It may surprise and shock you. It might even horrify and disgust you. You will never be the same.

Stayed tuned.

.

So long, 2015... and bite me

I'm tempted to say "Good riddance, and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out" to the year 2015. Not a good one for me by just about any measure. It will be a blot on my life forever.

But, 2016 will be better! Whatever I have control of, I will do better. Whatever the year throws at me I will try to handle better. I'm determined to NOT let the past get me down, and not let it defeat me.

Not even the event of November 17th.

A neighbor across the alley lost her 19 year-old daughter to a car wreck back about 5 or so years ago. She aged a lot afterwards. She rarely gets dressed, and is withdrawn, sad, and tragic. When my daughter was killed I made up my mind that wouldn't happen to me. It would be a horrible legacy for someone I love. And I think I have done fairly well.

For weeks afterward I wanted to stop every stranger I passed and tell them what happened. I didn't, but I wanted to. I mostly limited talking about it to this blog and Facebook. That was therapeutic and allowed me to get things off my chest without letting them take over my life. So, say what you will about Facebook (and I agree with the criticisms), it did serve a vital purpose in my mental health this past month and a half.

Anyway, I am determined that, to the extent I can control things, 2016 will be better.

And I hope yours is better for you, too. See ya next year.

.

Blaming others for your failure

Those who believe bad guys "out there" justify "borders" and cops here remind me of the puppeticians of Chicago and DC who blame their staggering murder rates on the freer regions (those with slightly less horrible anti-gun "laws") surrounding them.

There will always be somewhere else that you'll see as a threat when your carefully crafted scheme fails to deliver what you promised. Because governing is a lie, you will always fail.

Unless you have a "one world government", someone will be outside your (always illegitimate) jurisdiction and will have influence in your domain.

The solution isn't to more fully dominate and molest the people near you- it is to step away and stop governing and let people solve real problems (which are much more rare than the statist's imaginary ones) themselves.

Politicians are just bullies who create problems, then promise- and fail- to solve the problems they created.

Liberty works while bullies twerk.

.

Life’s never perfect, but still good

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 27, 2015)
For Cheyenne.

You already know this, of course, but you may not think about it very often: You never know what the next moment will bring. The worst days start exactly like the best days.

I was in the middle of writing last week’s column when I got the news that my 24-year-old daughter had been killed in a car wreck. Nothing can prepare you for something like that.

In the days to follow, in the midst of traveling and attending services, I realized Thanksgiving was approaching. Thankfulness, after this? Well, yes. I know I still have so many things to be thankful for. I have to admit to having a little trouble maintaining the thankfulness this year; it's competing with a profound sense of loss.

I'm thankful for the time I spent with my daughter. I'm thankful for my other two kids, and the rest of my family.

I'm thankful for how caring people can be. In words, and in actions, too. I was reminded, first hand, of the kindness of people, including strangers. And how willing people are to reach out to those in pain. So many people offered words of comfort and sympathy, and even financial help so I could travel to her service. I have been thankful for everything and the spirit in which it is offered. It's still a roller coaster. Life is never perfect, but there is always something good.

This has also shown yet again the futility of making up "laws"- and enforcing them- to supposedly protect us. Bad people won't obey; good people are harmed by having their liberty stolen using the bad people as excuses. You don't get safety in a police state. Never. It simply doesn't work that way.

Life is better lived in liberty than with the harmful illusion of safety. I wish my daughter had been able to live her life in the free society I envision and advocate, rather than the police state that is growing around us, but I'm also grateful there is as much freedom left as there is, and that she was able to enjoy some of it in her too-short life. I'm glad for every bit of liberty she grabbed when she had the opportunity.

So, yes, I am thankful. And I will continue to fight the liars who demand you give up essential liberty for the illusion of safety. For all our sons and daughters, but especially for the memory of my daughter, Cheyenne Rose.



.

Don't spit on your idea by turning it into a State

The Islamic State is something I hate and could never support.

But, not necessarily because it is Islamic- although I am not a fan of Islam.

The same would be true for a Christian State, a Jewish State, or an Atheist State.

I would oppose a Dog Lovers' State, a Football State, or a Coffee Drinkers' State.

And even a Libertarian State, or a "Free State".

The problem lies in declaring a State.

Creating a State around your idea- even if it's otherwise harmless or good- negates the harmlessness and good. A State is automatically a bad thing; built upon aggression, coercion, and theft.

I get it: people want to say "This area, defined by these boundaries, is different from those areas beyond these boundaries. This area is better than those areas for lots of reasons". And, they may even be somewhat right. But as soon as your area meets the definition of a State it has lost the moral high ground. You have trashed your idea, no matter how great it might have been to begin with.

.