Just in case anyone would like to help, I need money for a home AC repair. The humans and felines thank you.
.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Good people can't support cops
You can't be a good person, who is consistent and knowledgeable about police and the "laws" they enforce, and continue to support police.
It simply isn't possible.
I know this may hurt your feelings, and you might want to jump in to support nice Uncle John, the cop. But don't bother.
Nothing you could say, no excuses you could make, can change reality.
So, is your choice to be a decent person, or to continue to support cops? You have made the choice whether you know it or not.
(Here is a good article for those who would consider themselves "Christians", but who still support cops and the "laws" they enforce. It has its flaws, but don't we all?)
It simply isn't possible.
I know this may hurt your feelings, and you might want to jump in to support nice Uncle John, the cop. But don't bother.
Nothing you could say, no excuses you could make, can change reality.
So, is your choice to be a decent person, or to continue to support cops? You have made the choice whether you know it or not.
(Here is a good article for those who would consider themselves "Christians", but who still support cops and the "laws" they enforce. It has its flaws, but don't we all?)
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Saturday, July 16, 2016
Please think, and share
It never fails to amaze me that I can read perfectly normal, natural things that seem completely self-evident-- but which never occurred to me until I read them.
It happens every day. At least once, usually more.
It's why "we" need many different minds, thinking ALL THE TIME.
No one person can think of everything. Or even a tiny fraction of all that needs to be thought.
So, think. Then let me know what you come up with.
It happens every day. At least once, usually more.
It's why "we" need many different minds, thinking ALL THE TIME.
No one person can think of everything. Or even a tiny fraction of all that needs to be thought.
So, think. Then let me know what you come up with.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Suppose there were a gang...
... A gang which required members to rape, pillage, and attack people as a condition of membership. A gang which financed all its activities, and bought all its clothing and equipment, with money it stole from the local population. A gang which bragged about driving nice cars stolen from people they attacked. Any member who didn't commit those acts on a regular basis would be kicked out, and quite probably be subject to revenge by the other members.
As a condition of gang membership, you are agreeing to pretend other people's property rights can't apply to you. You pretend no one has the right of association where you are concerned- if someone tries to walk away when you insist on talking to them, the gang's rules say you can murder them. If someone tries to defend themselves from unwanted physical contact- or from even worse- the gang's rules say you can murder them. The rules you impose on others don't apply to you.
If you are a member of this gang you are openly admitting support for what the gang does. When you wear the gang colors, you are identifying yourself as a member in good standing. You are leaving no room for mistaken impressions of what you are, what you do, and what you support.
Any non-member caught wearing the gang colors or claiming to be a member would be kidnapped and caged, robbed, and quite possibly killed by actual members of the gang. The membership must be kept pure. There is no room for pretenders.
Sometimes the gang's members actually do helpful things. This is what the gang and its supporters want everyone believing the gang is all about, but it is actually a small and uncommon part of what the gang does. In fact, it is rare enough to be newsworthy when it happens.
The rapes, theft, and murders committed in the name of the gang are said to be committed by a "few bad apples", even though a "good apple" who didn't do those things- or at least turn a blind eye to those who do- would be kicked out of the gang and targeted for revenge. By staying in the gang, a member is endorsing all the gang's activities- official and unofficial.
The gang has done a good job convincing your family, friends, and neighbors that without them, other gangs would commit the same acts, but that this would somehow be worse; it would be chaos and mean the end of civilization. It is a lie, but few are willing to admit they are being lied to, and many actually believe it is true.
"Polite society"- particularly including newspapers and television and radio stations- ignores the nature of the gang, and instead praises the members for the few good deeds done- deeds that don't require gang membership to perform. They also ignore the evil nature of the acts that only members of the gang can get away with committing. Those who refuse to ignore the institutional evil are ostracized.
When a member of the gang gets killed while wearing the gang colors, "Polite Society" weeps and wails and tears at its clothing, acting as though the death came out of nowhere and was completely beyond understanding. No matter what the gang members have done recently, and no matter that the supposed "good apples" didn't disavow the acts of the members who committed the acts. Polite Society demands everyone weep and wail along with them, and voice their loyalty to the gang over and over again, lest they be thought of as horrible, uncivilized monsters.
I'm not Polite Society. I can't grieve when members of the gang are killed. Even if they weren't currently attacking the innocent, by remaining in the gang and wearing the gang colors openly, they are declaring themselves an enemy to everything good and civilized. How can anyone see the deaths of these gang members as a "bad thing"?
Well, this gang actually does exist. It infests every town and city in America, and in most of the world. They are the police- the Blue Line Gang (in America). They pretend they have no choice in the acts they commit because politicians made up "laws" by saying magic words which made their perverted opinions "official". Never mind that Nuremberg proved this to be a worthless defense. Individually, they each have the ability to refuse to do evil, even if a politician says they must. And, if a person can't avoid committing these acts without removing himself from the Blue Line Gang, then to be a good person he MUST quit the gang, regardless of the personal costs. If I have a job and my boss tells me I am required to overcharge a customer or lose my job, I can't remain in the job and still be a decent person. It simply isn't possible.
It doesn't matter if you believe these "laws" are a good idea, or even "necessary". It doesn't matter if the lack of them scares you. Any "law" which seeks to control something other than aggression or property violations is a counterfeit "law"- the few that are left are unnecessary laws.
In the absence of police some people might get away with violating life, liberty, and property of others. The existence of police guarantees it.
This is why there is no such thing as a "good cop", and why there can never be. It is self contradictory.
The police is where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face. Without them no evil ruler could impose his will on large numbers of people- people would simply kill him in self defense. Which is why politicians work so hard to whip up support for cops.
No good person can remain consistently good and continue to support the police. It simply isn't possible. I know good people who do support the police, but by doing so they are being inconsistent, and actually being evil at that moment. Withdraw your support; be a good person all the time.
The sooner you accept it, internalize it, and act on it, the sooner you will be free.
(Also published in The Libertarian Enterprise 7-17-2016)
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
There's Polite Society, and then there's reality.
Throughout history, Polite Society- the "nice people" whom society embraces and welcomes (including newspapers and other mass media)- has honored or worshiped those who use aggression and theft on behalf of the State. At least, that particular Polite Society's State.
Polite Society cheered the goose-stepping swastika jockies.
Polite Society applauded the soldiers who indiscriminately slaughtered Native women and children.
Polite Society supported the cops for killing scary "Brown People" who dared venture to the "good side of town", or those cops who turned a blind eye to the freelance bullies who did it.
The news media of the day reflected this support, and probably did more than its share of creating it.
Today, it hasn't really changed one bit. Even if the bullies and their victims change a little depending on time and place, the story has always been the same.
If you want to be a part of Polite Society, you worship government's thugs unconditionally.
"Without them, there'd be ANARCHY!"
"Rough men, doing rough things, so you can sleep sound at night."
And other silly platitudes.
How about the truth: bad guys, initiating force and theft, unhinging actions from consequences, making you less safe- but fooling you into believing you'd be in danger without them agitating desperate people to strike against you and yours.
See, this is why I am not welcome in Polite Society.
I want to be seen as a nice guy, not as a jerk. But, if accepting theft and aggression is necessary for that, the price is just too high.
Cops ARE scum. As are politicians, copsuckers, and everyone else who supports the State.
Polite Society cheered the goose-stepping swastika jockies.
Polite Society applauded the soldiers who indiscriminately slaughtered Native women and children.
Polite Society supported the cops for killing scary "Brown People" who dared venture to the "good side of town", or those cops who turned a blind eye to the freelance bullies who did it.
The news media of the day reflected this support, and probably did more than its share of creating it.
Today, it hasn't really changed one bit. Even if the bullies and their victims change a little depending on time and place, the story has always been the same.
If you want to be a part of Polite Society, you worship government's thugs unconditionally.
"Without them, there'd be ANARCHY!"
"Rough men, doing rough things, so you can sleep sound at night."
And other silly platitudes.
How about the truth: bad guys, initiating force and theft, unhinging actions from consequences, making you less safe- but fooling you into believing you'd be in danger without them agitating desperate people to strike against you and yours.
See, this is why I am not welcome in Polite Society.
I want to be seen as a nice guy, not as a jerk. But, if accepting theft and aggression is necessary for that, the price is just too high.
Cops ARE scum. As are politicians, copsuckers, and everyone else who supports the State.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Government working as designed
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 10, 2016)
I'm sure you've noticed, but this seems to be an exceptionally angry presidential election cycle. More than usual, those who hate the candidates are setting the tone, rather than those who support them. Just about everyone who cares passionately for one or the other seems to be behaving like a rabid animal.
People don't simply have a preference; they may like their candidate- or not- but they hate or fear the other candidates beyond all reason. Some then act on this hatred and fear.
Is this how elections are going to be from now on?
If you don't agree with the other candidate, use logic and reason to counter his (or her) claims. Or if that's too hard, use simplistic emotion to manipulate agreement. Whatever you do, don't use aggression. If you attack his supporters with fists, rocks, or eggs, you're admitting you can't come up with anything rational, so you are striking out like an impulsive child.
When the best advertisement for a candidate is those who oppose her (or him), perhaps it's time to look in a mirror. It's self-defeating behavior. It would be discouraging if I expected better of those who play politics.
Presidents are largely figureheads. If you look to them as role models, you are grasping at straws. No one who seeks political office-- the power to rule others-- should be your hero, ever. The particular person in office matters less than does the existence of the dangerous office.
I oppose all candidates and the offices they seek, on principle, so I don't have a horse in this race. If I did, seeing how voters act would put me off of elections for at least this year, and probably drive me away from them forever. Why would I want to be associated with a ritual which inspires such behavior?
But this is what you get when you allow someone power which was never meant for a person-- the power to tell others how they are permitted to live, and what they are required to do with their life and property. Only bad people will seek that kind of power, so only bad people will gain it.
Don't be surprised or disappointed at the outcome. The system is working just as it was designed to work; the only possible way it can work. In every election, only government wins. It's nothing to get angry about. It's something to recognize and refuse to be a part of. Are you brave enough?
.
I'm sure you've noticed, but this seems to be an exceptionally angry presidential election cycle. More than usual, those who hate the candidates are setting the tone, rather than those who support them. Just about everyone who cares passionately for one or the other seems to be behaving like a rabid animal.
People don't simply have a preference; they may like their candidate- or not- but they hate or fear the other candidates beyond all reason. Some then act on this hatred and fear.
Is this how elections are going to be from now on?
If you don't agree with the other candidate, use logic and reason to counter his (or her) claims. Or if that's too hard, use simplistic emotion to manipulate agreement. Whatever you do, don't use aggression. If you attack his supporters with fists, rocks, or eggs, you're admitting you can't come up with anything rational, so you are striking out like an impulsive child.
When the best advertisement for a candidate is those who oppose her (or him), perhaps it's time to look in a mirror. It's self-defeating behavior. It would be discouraging if I expected better of those who play politics.
Presidents are largely figureheads. If you look to them as role models, you are grasping at straws. No one who seeks political office-- the power to rule others-- should be your hero, ever. The particular person in office matters less than does the existence of the dangerous office.
I oppose all candidates and the offices they seek, on principle, so I don't have a horse in this race. If I did, seeing how voters act would put me off of elections for at least this year, and probably drive me away from them forever. Why would I want to be associated with a ritual which inspires such behavior?
But this is what you get when you allow someone power which was never meant for a person-- the power to tell others how they are permitted to live, and what they are required to do with their life and property. Only bad people will seek that kind of power, so only bad people will gain it.
Don't be surprised or disappointed at the outcome. The system is working just as it was designed to work; the only possible way it can work. In every election, only government wins. It's nothing to get angry about. It's something to recognize and refuse to be a part of. Are you brave enough?
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.
Government "solutions"
When I see governmental approaches to anything, this is what I see:
I see people turning things upside down and making them harder than they really are, by not thinking things through. Actually, by being idiots.
If you still try to fix issues with government, you need to stop, think about what you are doing, and if you still can't figure out you're holding it upside down, walk away from the table. Let others handle it.
You have all you need to solve everything which can be solved, and yet, by invoking theft and aggression, you are making it almost impossible. You are making it worse.
 |
| "It sure is hard to get the ball to stay on the tee! It must just be impossible." |
I see people turning things upside down and making them harder than they really are, by not thinking things through. Actually, by being idiots.
If you still try to fix issues with government, you need to stop, think about what you are doing, and if you still can't figure out you're holding it upside down, walk away from the table. Let others handle it.
You have all you need to solve everything which can be solved, and yet, by invoking theft and aggression, you are making it almost impossible. You are making it worse.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Monday, July 11, 2016
Consistency
It scares and confuses a LOT of people.
They want you to make exceptions for those they worship.
They want you to make exceptions for State policies and "laws" they like.
They want you to make exceptions for things they choose to not understand.
They simply want and need exceptions to give room for some inconsistent positions.
And, I try hard to not leave room for inconsistencies- but I'm quite sure I'm not perfect.
It won't gain you friends among these people to be consistent. I've known that for a long time.
Although I've seen it for years, it still disappoints me every time I am reminded of it- at least when I see it in people who claim to love liberty. I don't really expect it of statists, since all statism hinges on inconsistency.
Which leads me to something else.
Whenever I find people disliking me for some of my opinions, it inspires me to examine those opinions. It's very possible I am wrong. If I'm unsure about something, I'll let you know (abortion, for example). But as long as I'm sure, I won't be timid about saying so. And my certainty is always provisional; subject to change in the face of new information. But, when I look at their objections and see inconsistencies in their position, as much as I might want to change my views to make them like me again, I just can't do it. I would end up disliking myself. It's not worth the cost.
It bothers me that some people dislike me. It shouldn't, I know. But it does. If I were doing this for popularity, I'm going about it the wrong way. I should be blogging about Minecraft, or comic book hero movies, or the new Pokemon game. But those things are not important to me. Maybe I shouldn't be blogging at all, if I only wanted to be liked.
I'm not one of those who tries to make people dislike me, or gets some sort of validation from it. I have never once thought "everyone hates me, which just proves I'm right!"
And, yet...
That probably explains the drop in page views recently. I had wondered if the tone of my writing had changed after my daughter's tragic death, and was causing readers to drift away. But now I suspect it may be something else more fundamental. And I guess it explains the steady drop in subscriptions and donations over the past few months, too. I know some is due to the economy, but apparently not all. People aren't going to support those they dislike- I wouldn't expect them to, nor would I want them to. It violates the "everything voluntary" position I support. If you want out, now is the perfect time to end your subscription without guilt.
Maybe this is me being consistent again, or maybe this is me being inconsistent, crazy, stubborn, or whatever. I can't accurately judge that from this perspective.
They want you to make exceptions for those they worship.
They want you to make exceptions for State policies and "laws" they like.
They want you to make exceptions for things they choose to not understand.
They simply want and need exceptions to give room for some inconsistent positions.
And, I try hard to not leave room for inconsistencies- but I'm quite sure I'm not perfect.
It won't gain you friends among these people to be consistent. I've known that for a long time.
Although I've seen it for years, it still disappoints me every time I am reminded of it- at least when I see it in people who claim to love liberty. I don't really expect it of statists, since all statism hinges on inconsistency.
Which leads me to something else.
Whenever I find people disliking me for some of my opinions, it inspires me to examine those opinions. It's very possible I am wrong. If I'm unsure about something, I'll let you know (abortion, for example). But as long as I'm sure, I won't be timid about saying so. And my certainty is always provisional; subject to change in the face of new information. But, when I look at their objections and see inconsistencies in their position, as much as I might want to change my views to make them like me again, I just can't do it. I would end up disliking myself. It's not worth the cost.
It bothers me that some people dislike me. It shouldn't, I know. But it does. If I were doing this for popularity, I'm going about it the wrong way. I should be blogging about Minecraft, or comic book hero movies, or the new Pokemon game. But those things are not important to me. Maybe I shouldn't be blogging at all, if I only wanted to be liked.
I'm not one of those who tries to make people dislike me, or gets some sort of validation from it. I have never once thought "everyone hates me, which just proves I'm right!"
And, yet...
That probably explains the drop in page views recently. I had wondered if the tone of my writing had changed after my daughter's tragic death, and was causing readers to drift away. But now I suspect it may be something else more fundamental. And I guess it explains the steady drop in subscriptions and donations over the past few months, too. I know some is due to the economy, but apparently not all. People aren't going to support those they dislike- I wouldn't expect them to, nor would I want them to. It violates the "everything voluntary" position I support. If you want out, now is the perfect time to end your subscription without guilt.
Maybe this is me being consistent again, or maybe this is me being inconsistent, crazy, stubborn, or whatever. I can't accurately judge that from this perspective.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Time to declare a war on cops
My latest offering from The Libertarian Enterprise. Read it there (and then read the rest of this week's edition).
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
"Two party system"
Of course, I think v*ting amounts to continuing to play a rigged game with known cheaters, and expecting to sometimes win. And, even if you do win, all you get by winning is the chance to force your will on the losers for a time. Not ethical behavior.
But, that's not the only v*te-related craziness I see.
One related trap many v*ters fall into is believing the "two party system" is official, as if enshrined in the Constitution (which is a whole 'nother can of Ebola, but I'll leave the poor old CONstitution alone for now).
The "two party system", if you believe it is anything other than one State party with two play-acting, "opposition" sides for the sake of appearances, is nothing more than a temporary circumstance which happens to be in fashion. It has no more permanence than a gritty whirlwind.
Not only are the current "mainstream parties" just a fleeting accident of history, there is nothing special about having only two "mainstream" parties.
But, that's not the only v*te-related craziness I see.
One related trap many v*ters fall into is believing the "two party system" is official, as if enshrined in the Constitution (which is a whole 'nother can of Ebola, but I'll leave the poor old CONstitution alone for now).
The "two party system", if you believe it is anything other than one State party with two play-acting, "opposition" sides for the sake of appearances, is nothing more than a temporary circumstance which happens to be in fashion. It has no more permanence than a gritty whirlwind.
Not only are the current "mainstream parties" just a fleeting accident of history, there is nothing special about having only two "mainstream" parties.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Saturday, July 09, 2016
A few observations on cops
The outpouring of love for cops that has occurred online since the cops were killed in Dallas makes me sick. I mean, actually sick.
Against my better judgement I posted several thoughts and observations on this- not the specific incident, but just about all the fawning over cops I saw.
So, I'll share them here. You can decide if I'm crazy, like some said...
If you get upset when cops get killed "in the line of duty", but don't feel the same when burglars, muggers, rapists, and other freelance bad guys get killed for "just doing their job", too, you might have a problem being consistent.
The idea that 'people should just put up with the violations of murderous bullies because those bullies wear badges' is horrific.
I have spoken to cops and people in training to become cops.
If you believe they aren't being trained to view you and me as "criminals they just haven't caught yet", you are delusional.
They are being carefully trained into an "Us vs Them" mindset, and you and I are the "Them".
They are also brainwashed into feeling entitled to do whatever they want, and expecting you to still worship them for it.
They are being trained that you have no rights other than those they allow you to have, and that their word is LAW. Instant compliance is compulsory, and the penalty for hesitation is death.
Cops are the most aggressive gang in America. The Blue Line Gang. They are NOT the good guys. Period.
If you support them, you are part of the problem.
Giving thieves, murderers, and other aggressors a pass because of their "job" is absurd.
I will suggest a way I think is much better, in most cases, than shooting cops... if you care to listen.
I think a better tactic to use against cops would be for people to simply ignore their worthless hides.
Do what you are going to do as long as it doesn't violate anyone else- regardless of the idiotic opinions of lawflinging bullies and their hired thugs. Ignore the enforcers and stand with those doing so when it looks like the Blue Line Gang is going to violate them. A solid line of gritty, determined defense for their intended victims would cause them to back down faster than a prosecutor facing a Clinton.
Shun them in business and personal life. Turn your back (figuratively, and literally if you don't think they are likely to shoot you in the back at the moment) anytime they are present.
Cops don't deserve respect, they deserve contempt. They have earned it in spades. It's time they are paid their wages.
Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face.
Yet, they believe they are entitled to continue committing acts of enforcement against their ethical and moral superiors without consequence, because consequences for their behavior are so rare.
They are shocked, angered, and stunned when consequences catch up to them.
I want one of two things to happen:
either cops change their behavior to the extent they are no longer cops (no longer violating life, liberty, or property as part of "doing their job"), or I want them to face consequences daily; each and every time they enforce a counterfeit "law" or otherwise violate someone.
I don't "need" cops, and neither do you.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating:
It's not always smart to do what you have a natural human right to do.
You always have a right to defend yourself and others from aggressors or gangs of aggressors. Always.
And, cops are aggressors (and thieves).
But, they are a popular gang. They are getting less popular, through their own actions, but they are still too popular to successfully defend yourself from and survive. They are outnumbered on a massive scale, but too many of their victims still come flying to their defense.
So, work on eroding that popular support, and maybe you'll never have to defend yourself from the Blue Line Gang.
It is NEVER OK to support cops. There is no excuse for it. Don't coddle those who do. Supporting cops is as disgusting as supporting rapists and murderers (those who aren't cops, too, I mean), and those who do it should be reminded of this fact.
.---.
The idea that 'people should just put up with the violations of murderous bullies because those bullies wear badges' is horrific.
.---.
I have spoken to cops and people in training to become cops.
If you believe they aren't being trained to view you and me as "criminals they just haven't caught yet", you are delusional.
They are being carefully trained into an "Us vs Them" mindset, and you and I are the "Them".
They are also brainwashed into feeling entitled to do whatever they want, and expecting you to still worship them for it.
They are being trained that you have no rights other than those they allow you to have, and that their word is LAW. Instant compliance is compulsory, and the penalty for hesitation is death.
Cops are the most aggressive gang in America. The Blue Line Gang. They are NOT the good guys. Period.
If you support them, you are part of the problem.
.---.
Giving thieves, murderers, and other aggressors a pass because of their "job" is absurd.
.---.
I will suggest a way I think is much better, in most cases, than shooting cops... if you care to listen.
I think a better tactic to use against cops would be for people to simply ignore their worthless hides.
Do what you are going to do as long as it doesn't violate anyone else- regardless of the idiotic opinions of lawflinging bullies and their hired thugs. Ignore the enforcers and stand with those doing so when it looks like the Blue Line Gang is going to violate them. A solid line of gritty, determined defense for their intended victims would cause them to back down faster than a prosecutor facing a Clinton.
Shun them in business and personal life. Turn your back (figuratively, and literally if you don't think they are likely to shoot you in the back at the moment) anytime they are present.
Cops don't deserve respect, they deserve contempt. They have earned it in spades. It's time they are paid their wages.
.---.
Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face.
Yet, they believe they are entitled to continue committing acts of enforcement against their ethical and moral superiors without consequence, because consequences for their behavior are so rare.
They are shocked, angered, and stunned when consequences catch up to them.
I want one of two things to happen:
either cops change their behavior to the extent they are no longer cops (no longer violating life, liberty, or property as part of "doing their job"), or I want them to face consequences daily; each and every time they enforce a counterfeit "law" or otherwise violate someone.
I don't "need" cops, and neither do you.
.---.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating:
It's not always smart to do what you have a natural human right to do.
You always have a right to defend yourself and others from aggressors or gangs of aggressors. Always.
And, cops are aggressors (and thieves).
But, they are a popular gang. They are getting less popular, through their own actions, but they are still too popular to successfully defend yourself from and survive. They are outnumbered on a massive scale, but too many of their victims still come flying to their defense.
So, work on eroding that popular support, and maybe you'll never have to defend yourself from the Blue Line Gang.
It is NEVER OK to support cops. There is no excuse for it. Don't coddle those who do. Supporting cops is as disgusting as supporting rapists and murderers (those who aren't cops, too, I mean), and those who do it should be reminded of this fact.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.Friday, July 08, 2016
"War on police"?
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Thursday, July 07, 2016
The last thing a town needs
The local police chief is complaining that he needs the town to authorize him to hire another cop. Which also means buying another flashing-light-sporting Mobile Scummery Unit with which to chase down and rob more drivers.
Of course, there's no real crime here. If you look at the local victims of law enforcement you'll notice mainly people who ingested or possessed substances the State has formed a negative opinion of. With a few DWIs (although those are caught by someone other than the town cops, like state stormtroopers or the shire reaver department) thrown in. Usually several "driving without a license", fleeing a molester- sorry, I mean "evading arrest", and the occasional "refusal to identify", and some "illegal gun carry" for those they can't molest using another excuse.
Absolutely ZERO "need" for another cop.
"But all the other towns this size have three officers", he whines. "A third officer would free me and the other officer to take days off, and have someone available to respond when the others are busy."
Fortunately, the response I have seen to his suggestion is unanimously negative. Eventually, I know the cowards of the city council will give the bully what he wants. I have seen it too many times.
As everyone knows, adding more cops adds more crime. They will go around looking for more "offenses"- and will undoubtedly find them. Must justify that paycheck, you know.
It means less self-responsibility as people get brainwashed and lazy, depending on cops to do what they should be doing for themselves. This degrades quality of life for everyone. And will eventually give justification for even more "laws" and cops.
This means there will be yet another cop patrolling the school zone looking for "distracted drivers" or those whose "speed" is completely safe, but exceeds the arbitrary "limit", or people who don't fully stop at the stop signs (following the example of said cops who cruise around while staring absent-mindedly at their computer screen instead of paying attention to the kids).
This means justification for stealing more money from residents through "taxation"- unless the cops manage to steal enough through "fines" to pay for themselves.
Cops are scum, and the last thing this town needs is another sanctioned scumwad molesting the residents.
Instead of hiring another, fire them all.
Of course, there's no real crime here. If you look at the local victims of law enforcement you'll notice mainly people who ingested or possessed substances the State has formed a negative opinion of. With a few DWIs (although those are caught by someone other than the town cops, like state stormtroopers or the shire reaver department) thrown in. Usually several "driving without a license", fleeing a molester- sorry, I mean "evading arrest", and the occasional "refusal to identify", and some "illegal gun carry" for those they can't molest using another excuse.
Absolutely ZERO "need" for another cop.
"But all the other towns this size have three officers", he whines. "A third officer would free me and the other officer to take days off, and have someone available to respond when the others are busy."
Fortunately, the response I have seen to his suggestion is unanimously negative. Eventually, I know the cowards of the city council will give the bully what he wants. I have seen it too many times.
As everyone knows, adding more cops adds more crime. They will go around looking for more "offenses"- and will undoubtedly find them. Must justify that paycheck, you know.
It means less self-responsibility as people get brainwashed and lazy, depending on cops to do what they should be doing for themselves. This degrades quality of life for everyone. And will eventually give justification for even more "laws" and cops.
This means there will be yet another cop patrolling the school zone looking for "distracted drivers" or those whose "speed" is completely safe, but exceeds the arbitrary "limit", or people who don't fully stop at the stop signs (following the example of said cops who cruise around while staring absent-mindedly at their computer screen instead of paying attention to the kids).
This means justification for stealing more money from residents through "taxation"- unless the cops manage to steal enough through "fines" to pay for themselves.
Cops are scum, and the last thing this town needs is another sanctioned scumwad molesting the residents.
Instead of hiring another, fire them all.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Wednesday, July 06, 2016
The FBI endorses nullification... sort of
(A Patreon/subscriber-only post. Come on, subscribe! You know you want to.)
The FBI: Yes, Hillary broke the law. No, she shouldn't be punished. Don't get any ideas, because YOU are not Hillary.
This is nullification on an individual scale. Applied to one "special" individual in one specific case. Not that I don't believe she could get away with it as many times as it takes to protect her.
The thing is, I don't really care.
The "law" is stupid. There should be no government secrets. L. Neil Smith suggests that keeping government secrets should be the only capital crime. Would you allow your butler to keep secrets relating to his job from you?
Of course, there should be no FBI to investigate or rule on this. The agency is unconstitutional and demonstrably criminal. They earned the name "Feral Baby Incinerators".
Then again, there should be no government to have an FBI, a "secretary of state", secrets, a Constitution, or "laws". It's another case of striking at the root, rather than thrashing the branches.
I guess this is why I wasn't that worried over whether Hillary would be prosecuted. She broke the law, sure, but I have no respect for the law, or those it protects, or those who would enforce it. I say expose all government secrets and let people see exactly what government is. If it takes a lying bully such as Hillary to bring down the farce, so be it.
Of course, this proclamation from the FBI should have resulted in the immediate release of Chelsea Manning and the end of threats to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange and everyone else being punished for doing the exact same thing Hillary did... but it won't. They are not Hillary, either.
The FBI: Yes, Hillary broke the law. No, she shouldn't be punished. Don't get any ideas, because YOU are not Hillary.
This is nullification on an individual scale. Applied to one "special" individual in one specific case. Not that I don't believe she could get away with it as many times as it takes to protect her.
The thing is, I don't really care.
The "law" is stupid. There should be no government secrets. L. Neil Smith suggests that keeping government secrets should be the only capital crime. Would you allow your butler to keep secrets relating to his job from you?
Of course, there should be no FBI to investigate or rule on this. The agency is unconstitutional and demonstrably criminal. They earned the name "Feral Baby Incinerators".
Then again, there should be no government to have an FBI, a "secretary of state", secrets, a Constitution, or "laws". It's another case of striking at the root, rather than thrashing the branches.
I guess this is why I wasn't that worried over whether Hillary would be prosecuted. She broke the law, sure, but I have no respect for the law, or those it protects, or those who would enforce it. I say expose all government secrets and let people see exactly what government is. If it takes a lying bully such as Hillary to bring down the farce, so be it.
Of course, this proclamation from the FBI should have resulted in the immediate release of Chelsea Manning and the end of threats to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange and everyone else being punished for doing the exact same thing Hillary did... but it won't. They are not Hillary, either.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Expectations of perfection
I believe I have noticed another difference between myself and most statists: I don't expect perfection.
I'm accepting of the fact that the world isn't perfect, and will never be perfect. I try to adapt to the problems as they crop up. Sometimes I don't do well; other times I do OK.
But, the statists around me seem really stymied by simple imperfections. They wring their hands and gnash their teeth, and seem to have a hard time letting go.
What does bother me is intentional flaws- especially when the solution is simple.
"Taxation" is wrong, because it is theft, and the solution is so simple: just stop doing it. The world would survive just fine. Civilization would thrive. Innovation would be unchained. Yes, bullies and parasites would be inconvenienced, but that's a good thing.
And that's not the only simple solution to manufactured problems. Anti-gun "laws" empower murderers. End them.
Anti-business "laws" cripple the economy and impoverish individuals. End them.
The list could go on for many pages.
Yet, I don't expect perfection even in liberty. There will always be problems and flaws in the world. It's just that I see it as insane to pile unnecessary ones on top of the random and arbitrary ones which would exist anyway.
Somewhat related is the observation that statists assume intentions according to their preconceptions. They assume cops and "troops" mean well, even when their actions are completely evil. And they'll assume someone who isn't in one of their favored groups has the worst of intentions, no matter how well they behave. Myself, I go more by what they do than what they may have intended to do. I'd rather someone have bad intentions, but respect liberty, than someone to have the best of intentions, yet violate liberty. Call me silly, I suppose.
.
I'm accepting of the fact that the world isn't perfect, and will never be perfect. I try to adapt to the problems as they crop up. Sometimes I don't do well; other times I do OK.
But, the statists around me seem really stymied by simple imperfections. They wring their hands and gnash their teeth, and seem to have a hard time letting go.
What does bother me is intentional flaws- especially when the solution is simple.
"Taxation" is wrong, because it is theft, and the solution is so simple: just stop doing it. The world would survive just fine. Civilization would thrive. Innovation would be unchained. Yes, bullies and parasites would be inconvenienced, but that's a good thing.
And that's not the only simple solution to manufactured problems. Anti-gun "laws" empower murderers. End them.
Anti-business "laws" cripple the economy and impoverish individuals. End them.
The list could go on for many pages.
Yet, I don't expect perfection even in liberty. There will always be problems and flaws in the world. It's just that I see it as insane to pile unnecessary ones on top of the random and arbitrary ones which would exist anyway.
Somewhat related is the observation that statists assume intentions according to their preconceptions. They assume cops and "troops" mean well, even when their actions are completely evil. And they'll assume someone who isn't in one of their favored groups has the worst of intentions, no matter how well they behave. Myself, I go more by what they do than what they may have intended to do. I'd rather someone have bad intentions, but respect liberty, than someone to have the best of intentions, yet violate liberty. Call me silly, I suppose.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.
Tuesday, July 05, 2016
Awaiting Bernie’s plan to help poor
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 3, 2016)
.
It's a rare thing for me to agree with a presidential candidate-- and rarer still for me to agree with an avowed socialist.
Bernie Sanders recently said it is "unacceptable" that nearly 47 million Americans live in poverty. Assuming his numbers are right-- not that it matters even if he's off by an order of magnitude or two-- that's too many. I agree with him. It is completely unacceptable.
So, does Bernie have an actual plan to fix it, or does he believe he can magically lift the poor by bringing down everyone else with taxes and regulations?
If one is honest about finding poverty unacceptable, one will support the steps required to solve it.
So, is Sanders ready to end taxation? To allow everyone, rich and poor, to keep all their money? To end all business taxes? Every corporate tax ends up being paid by the customer, because that's the economic reality of taxing businesses. Any business which doesn't figure every expense, including all taxes and government fees, into the final price the customer pays, will go out of business. No more jobs; no more of the benefits the business brings to society, including to you and the poor. Taxation is not the price we pay for a civilized society; civilized society is what we sometimes manage in spite of taxation. The poor can't afford taxation, and neither can you.
It's a necessary first step, but there are more.
The best way to lift someone out of poverty is to stop preventing them from earning money. Is Mr. Sanders willing to advocate for ending licensing requirements and business permits? Wealthy people can afford to pay those ridiculous fees, but a poor person wanting to start her own business probably can't. If they dare to do business anyway, their business will be stolen from them by government employees "just doing my job", and they will be fined or jailed. All under the claim of "protecting society". Is he willing to end the criminalization of acts of free enterprise between consenting parties?
The poor are being "protected" into poverty, and kept there by red tape, regulations, and laws.
Widespread poverty should be a solved problem.
Or does Bernie plan to keep doing more of the same to trap those who are already impoverished in their current circumstances and make others join them; preventing both from helping themselves? Because that's been the standard government tactic for a century or so, and it isn't helping anyone but politicians.
Bernie Sanders recently said it is "unacceptable" that nearly 47 million Americans live in poverty. Assuming his numbers are right-- not that it matters even if he's off by an order of magnitude or two-- that's too many. I agree with him. It is completely unacceptable.
So, does Bernie have an actual plan to fix it, or does he believe he can magically lift the poor by bringing down everyone else with taxes and regulations?
If one is honest about finding poverty unacceptable, one will support the steps required to solve it.
So, is Sanders ready to end taxation? To allow everyone, rich and poor, to keep all their money? To end all business taxes? Every corporate tax ends up being paid by the customer, because that's the economic reality of taxing businesses. Any business which doesn't figure every expense, including all taxes and government fees, into the final price the customer pays, will go out of business. No more jobs; no more of the benefits the business brings to society, including to you and the poor. Taxation is not the price we pay for a civilized society; civilized society is what we sometimes manage in spite of taxation. The poor can't afford taxation, and neither can you.
It's a necessary first step, but there are more.
The best way to lift someone out of poverty is to stop preventing them from earning money. Is Mr. Sanders willing to advocate for ending licensing requirements and business permits? Wealthy people can afford to pay those ridiculous fees, but a poor person wanting to start her own business probably can't. If they dare to do business anyway, their business will be stolen from them by government employees "just doing my job", and they will be fined or jailed. All under the claim of "protecting society". Is he willing to end the criminalization of acts of free enterprise between consenting parties?
The poor are being "protected" into poverty, and kept there by red tape, regulations, and laws.
Widespread poverty should be a solved problem.
Or does Bernie plan to keep doing more of the same to trap those who are already impoverished in their current circumstances and make others join them; preventing both from helping themselves? Because that's been the standard government tactic for a century or so, and it isn't helping anyone but politicians.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.
Statist's opinions
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion!"
Yes, and you are also entitled to commit suicide by drinking Drano, too. So? Why yap about it?
When someone declares their entitlement to an opinion, you can be certain they are aware on some level that their opinion is wrong. They instinctively know their opinion has been weighed by reality and has been found wanting. They may not be willing to admit it, and may be desperately trying to carve out a safe space for their sad little flawed opinion with this classic gem.
An example (one of many*) of this is when an anti-libertarian is confronted with objective facts showing that there can be no such thing as a "good cop". They really don't like this one, and will unfailingly try to save face by whipping out their entitlement to an opinion.
Yes, they can hold the opinion that there are "good cops", but reality shows otherwise. Sure, there can be nice cops, just as there can be nice Mafioso, nice rapists, nice burglars, and nice murderers (at least when they aren't committing the acts which define them). But by being any one of those, including a cop, they eliminate any possibility of being a good person.
When this is pointed out, the "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" is one last desperate shot at trying to not look like an whining ethical weakling.
It never works.
*I also see it a lot with anti-gun bigots and "taxation" advocates. Like I say, basically anti-liberty bigots of all stripes who come to realize they can't support their flawed opinion when measured against reality.
Yes, and you are also entitled to commit suicide by drinking Drano, too. So? Why yap about it?
When someone declares their entitlement to an opinion, you can be certain they are aware on some level that their opinion is wrong. They instinctively know their opinion has been weighed by reality and has been found wanting. They may not be willing to admit it, and may be desperately trying to carve out a safe space for their sad little flawed opinion with this classic gem.
An example (one of many*) of this is when an anti-libertarian is confronted with objective facts showing that there can be no such thing as a "good cop". They really don't like this one, and will unfailingly try to save face by whipping out their entitlement to an opinion.
Yes, they can hold the opinion that there are "good cops", but reality shows otherwise. Sure, there can be nice cops, just as there can be nice Mafioso, nice rapists, nice burglars, and nice murderers (at least when they aren't committing the acts which define them). But by being any one of those, including a cop, they eliminate any possibility of being a good person.
When this is pointed out, the "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" is one last desperate shot at trying to not look like an whining ethical weakling.
It never works.
-
*I also see it a lot with anti-gun bigots and "taxation" advocates. Like I say, basically anti-liberty bigots of all stripes who come to realize they can't support their flawed opinion when measured against reality.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Monday, July 04, 2016
In-duh-pendence Day
"How can we turn a specifically anti-State holiday into a grovelling celebration of the State and a worship service for its bullies, goons, thugs, and tools?"
"The Fourth of July", once known as "Independence Day", depresses me. It has for years now.
I'm not a huge fan of fireworks- I'd prefer actual gunshots and such; noise with a purpose.
I don't enjoy setting off my own fireworks, and wouldn't do it at all if it weren't for my 8 year-old daughter wanting them.
And I really dislike driving in horrible traffic, and sitting in red, white, and blue crowds to watch a government-sponsored fireworks display, complete with patriotic statist war marches. Ugh!!
I am depressed that almost everyone has turned the day into a celebration of government "allowing" them to have (a teeny tiny bit of) "freedom", and worshiping the military. While proudly obeying the "laws" against "open containers", smoking pot, open carry, and whatever else the bullies dream up "laws" about, of course. While law enforcement thugs swagger through the crowd looking to cause trouble. It's sickening, really.
I'd be thrilled to see some displays of independence instead of fireworks. People breaking counterfeit "laws" and defending themselves from bullies with badges trying to commit acts of enforcement against them. That would give me a bigger boost than any fireworks display ever conceived.
Yes, I know I can focus on what I want the day to be about. But be careful of celebrating actual independence too openly; it could get you kidnapped or murdered by enforcers in Police State USA.
"The Fourth of July", once known as "Independence Day", depresses me. It has for years now.
I'm not a huge fan of fireworks- I'd prefer actual gunshots and such; noise with a purpose.
I don't enjoy setting off my own fireworks, and wouldn't do it at all if it weren't for my 8 year-old daughter wanting them.
And I really dislike driving in horrible traffic, and sitting in red, white, and blue crowds to watch a government-sponsored fireworks display, complete with patriotic statist war marches. Ugh!!
I am depressed that almost everyone has turned the day into a celebration of government "allowing" them to have (a teeny tiny bit of) "freedom", and worshiping the military. While proudly obeying the "laws" against "open containers", smoking pot, open carry, and whatever else the bullies dream up "laws" about, of course. While law enforcement thugs swagger through the crowd looking to cause trouble. It's sickening, really.
I'd be thrilled to see some displays of independence instead of fireworks. People breaking counterfeit "laws" and defending themselves from bullies with badges trying to commit acts of enforcement against them. That would give me a bigger boost than any fireworks display ever conceived.
Yes, I know I can focus on what I want the day to be about. But be careful of celebrating actual independence too openly; it could get you kidnapped or murdered by enforcers in Police State USA.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Sunday, July 03, 2016
Sheltering their ignorance
Statists are much like obstinate children. They don't want to be told anything. Particularly anything which threatens what they believe (or wish to believe).
They'll repeat something clearly untrue or nonsense, but don't want to listen or hear the truth that exposes what they just said to be untrue. No matter how obvious the truth is.
Sure, you could probably explain reality to them so clearly even they would understand- reality really isn't that hard to explain or understand- but they won't listen. They can't. It would scare them too badly to have their worldview shattered like that.
The only way statists can remain statists is by refusing to learn.
Statism is a sad condition.
They'll repeat something clearly untrue or nonsense, but don't want to listen or hear the truth that exposes what they just said to be untrue. No matter how obvious the truth is.
Sure, you could probably explain reality to them so clearly even they would understand- reality really isn't that hard to explain or understand- but they won't listen. They can't. It would scare them too badly to have their worldview shattered like that.
The only way statists can remain statists is by refusing to learn.
Statism is a sad condition.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Saturday, July 02, 2016
No such critter as an aggressive good guy
Drug dealers are better people than cops.
You can deal drugs and not be a bad guy. Don't initiate force. Don't violate property. Don't defraud. Sure, prohibition makes it harder, and attracts people who are already aggressive thieves and cheats into the job. But, it's not a requirement for doing that work.
You can not be a cop without being a bad guy. It simply isn't possible to be a cop without initiating force and violating property as a daily requirement of doing that work- the work of committing acts of enforcement.
You can deal drugs and not be a bad guy. Don't initiate force. Don't violate property. Don't defraud. Sure, prohibition makes it harder, and attracts people who are already aggressive thieves and cheats into the job. But, it's not a requirement for doing that work.
You can not be a cop without being a bad guy. It simply isn't possible to be a cop without initiating force and violating property as a daily requirement of doing that work- the work of committing acts of enforcement.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)