Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
About those "bad apples"
Let's pretend that the problem with cops really is "just a few bad apples" like cop supporters continually insist.
What does an apple seller do with any bad apples he discovers in a barrel of apples?
Does the apple salesman make excuses for the bad apple and leave it in the barrel?
Does he remove it for a couple of weeks, then sneak it back in when no one is looking?
If he does toss it out, do other apple sellers enthusiastically come get it and put it in their barrel?
Do the other apples crowd around to protect the bad apple from being disposed of?
What happens if you leave bad apples in the barrel with the good apples?
Will the bad apples be made good again by exposure to the good apples, or will the bad apples ruin the whole barrel?
What are police departments doing with all the bad apples that keep turning up?
Are police departments disposing of the bad apples that expose themselves?
But, you might point out: people aren't fruit.
You're right. People aren't rotten fruit to be thrown in the compost heap. So why do cop supporters keep insisting on making that comparison?
Monday, August 14, 2017
New videos
Here are my most recent videos. I don't feel like posting each one here individually, so maybe I'll do a post every week or so- depending on how many videos I make.
(These are the Youtube versions, but they are all available on Vidme, too! Just in case you want to reduce your usage of Google.)
Please subscribe to my channel to get all the videos before I get around to linking them here.
(These are the Youtube versions, but they are all available on Vidme, too! Just in case you want to reduce your usage of Google.)
Please subscribe to my channel to get all the videos before I get around to linking them here.
Nuclear solar electric cars!
Fred, Fred, Fred... you ought to know better.
About electric cars, he says:
Liberals love them because they will prevent pollution, end global warming, and maybe stop hair loss. Libertarians hate them because they associate them with clean air, federal subsidies, and Al Gore.He might say it isn't possible, me being a libertarian and all, but my first car was an electric car. I love them. And I know their limitations. (Yes, that's actually me and my electric car in the picture above, in the spring of 1980.) I like clean air, I dislike government subsidies, and Al Gore is a big ol' hypocrite I can ignore. Next!
So where does the electricity come from? From all kinds of generating plants, I guess–now. But if it came from nuclear power plants, then you would have a nuclear-powered car. See? And you would have zero pollution of the air.
I guess it depends how you define "pollution of the air", but whatever.
Back when I drove an electric car, the location where I lived got the majority of its electricity from a nuclear plant (at least when that plant wasn't shut down for one reason or another). I had a bumper sticker on my car saying something about how many barrels of oil one nuclear power plant saved. So my car was nuclear powered, and in fact, all my friends called it "The Nuke".
Then, of solar power he says:
Again, libertarians are against it, probably because Al Gore thinks it is a good idea.
Nope. I love solar power, but I know the environmental damage done by manufacturing the solar panels required for solar electricity. My problem with most people who advocate solar electricity is that they seem to be ignorant of the environmental costs (the same with large-scale wind-generators such as are sprouting up all around me). There is a cost to everything. Be aware of it, take it into account, then make your choice. Personally, I would love a solar roof.
Anyway, yeah, I know it's just humor on his part, but it is good to keep people honest. Right?
-
Totally unrelated, other than it is about transportation (or rather, the prevention of transportation), I think I'll start calling the TSA the Terrorist Support Administration. More accurate.
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Don't believe in gender grab bag
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 12, 2017- I titled this one "Gender identity doesn't determine rights", which I still believe is better.)
Contrary to enlightened opinion, I believe there are only two genders, male and female-- with the occasional rare fluke of nature resulting in what used be to called a hermaphrodite.
I don't believe in the grab bag of genders which seems so trendy these days, nor do I believe in the validity of choosing non-binary gender identities, apart from those occasional rarities I mentioned above. I believe in biology.
Yes, it's a shameful confession, revealing one of my terrible shortcomings.
It is also a dangerous view, and a radical perspective, to admit publicly. It labels me, to those on the political Left, as a bigot. In some places, such as Canada, it could make me a criminal.
Yet, my beliefs are nothing but my opinion, and as such they are immaterial.
Because here's the thing which matters: Opinions don't dictate reality; reality is independent of mere opinion, and the reality is that your fundamental human rights don't depend on your gender. As a human you have the full complement of human rights-- life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness-- just because you are alive. End of story.
The outdated view, from back when people believed rights depended on who or what you were and could be added to or taken away, has run its course. It's out of steam. Time to discard that superstition and move on. It's why I see both sides of the argument over gender identities as socially destructive and a distraction.
Even if I think you are a little off-kilter, I will defend your rights, including your right to believe as you wish, up until the moment you try to violate the person or property of another. No one has a right to try to change your beliefs by force, including force of law, just as you have no right to dictate how others believe or speak. Anyone who tries to make up laws based on someone's gender, either to create rights which can't exist, or to take away rights which no one can take away, is wrong. It's simply not subject to legislation one way or the other.
The political Left is correct when it says no laws should be made to force people into gender boxes or punish those who don't fit, and the political Right is correct when it says no laws should force anyone to pretend, and speak as though they believe, someone's psychological issues reflect reality.
Contrary to enlightened opinion, I believe there are only two genders, male and female-- with the occasional rare fluke of nature resulting in what used be to called a hermaphrodite.
I don't believe in the grab bag of genders which seems so trendy these days, nor do I believe in the validity of choosing non-binary gender identities, apart from those occasional rarities I mentioned above. I believe in biology.
Yes, it's a shameful confession, revealing one of my terrible shortcomings.
It is also a dangerous view, and a radical perspective, to admit publicly. It labels me, to those on the political Left, as a bigot. In some places, such as Canada, it could make me a criminal.
Yet, my beliefs are nothing but my opinion, and as such they are immaterial.
Because here's the thing which matters: Opinions don't dictate reality; reality is independent of mere opinion, and the reality is that your fundamental human rights don't depend on your gender. As a human you have the full complement of human rights-- life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness-- just because you are alive. End of story.
The outdated view, from back when people believed rights depended on who or what you were and could be added to or taken away, has run its course. It's out of steam. Time to discard that superstition and move on. It's why I see both sides of the argument over gender identities as socially destructive and a distraction.
Even if I think you are a little off-kilter, I will defend your rights, including your right to believe as you wish, up until the moment you try to violate the person or property of another. No one has a right to try to change your beliefs by force, including force of law, just as you have no right to dictate how others believe or speak. Anyone who tries to make up laws based on someone's gender, either to create rights which can't exist, or to take away rights which no one can take away, is wrong. It's simply not subject to legislation one way or the other.
The political Left is correct when it says no laws should be made to force people into gender boxes or punish those who don't fit, and the political Right is correct when it says no laws should force anyone to pretend, and speak as though they believe, someone's psychological issues reflect reality.
Fearing "terrorism"
"Terrorism" has no grip on me. I'm not brave, though.
My biggest fear has already become reality: the loss of one of my kids. I won't say I exactly survived, because not all of me did. I'm somewhat changed. Maybe those around me see it; maybe it's all tucked inside and they don't. Either way, I'm still here.
And especially now, to me, "terrorism" is nothing but loserism. It can't scare me.
It really never has. Whether it comes from ISIS, ICEis, Washington DC, North Korea, or the local cops. They are all just gangs of bullies looking for people to intimidate. If you don't cower, they lose.
Although I will say that on September 11, 2001 I did a lot of looking up at the sky. On that day I had planes (or whatever-- depending on what you believe about that day's events) causing problems east, southeast, and west of me. I felt kind of surrounded.
That day, caught up in the viral stupidity, I flew a "Betsy Ross" flag from my deck (I will not have an official federal Holy Pole Quilt on my property). I'm ashamed of that knee-jerk reaction now.
Yet even then, I wasn't looking for government to "save" me. I knew the most likely result would be a further destruction of liberty from a government excited to have an excuse and a populace too scared to object to any new escalation of tyranny.
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Liberty experiment failed
(This is a guest post, written by someone who prefers to stay anonymous. I don't usually do this, but I made an exception in his case. All opinions expressed in the main body of the post are his.)
It is with much sadness, sorrow, and regrets that I realize that our great experiment has failed; Our fleeting Liberty has been forever lost.
It lasted a total of 6 Years, 6 Months, 16 Days.
Here are the facts that few Americans even know. (Quoted text from various American History websites which I won’t name. The interested reader will look them up for himself. I fully expect nobody will bother to do so.)
“The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781
“Until the new Constitution was ratified, the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation. The document was tailored to a newly formed nation made of states acting as independent countries, and it quickly became clear to America’sleaders [politicians] that future stability [their power] required a stronger, more centralized government. New York’s Alexander Hamilton thus led the call for a constitutional convention to reevaluate the nation’s governing document. The Confederation Congress endorsed his initiative, and representatives from all 13 states were subsequently invited to convene in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, to participate in the convention.
“The initial purpose of the Convention was forthe delegates [a group of greedy, ungodly and powerful men] to amend the Articles of Confederation; however, the ultimate outcome was the proposal and creation of a completely new form of government. On September 17, 1787, the convention concluded with the signing (by 38 out of 41 delegates present) of the new U.S. Constitution. Under Article VII, it was agreed that the document would not be binding until its ratification by nine of the 13 existing states.
“Hamilton and James Madison [two of the worse enemies of Liberty this nation has yet seen] led the lobbying efforts for votes in favor of ratifying the Constitution. With assistance from [traitor to Liberty] John Jay, they produced the 85 essays known as “The Federalist Papers” that explained and defended how the proposed new government would function. The essays were published in newspapers nationwide and were pivotal to securing ratification.”
[The anti-federalist papers were ignored by most people because they didn’t understand they were being led astray. Even now that our Liberty is almost gone, still most people won’t even read them! Even now that these papers are digitized and made into audio files, few Americans bother to listen to them!]
It’s anyone’s guess if The Articles of Confederation would have secured Liberty on these shores. It’s impossible to know what could have been.
The exact dates of ratification of the new constitution are listed below, but they really don’t matter. My statement of “6 Years, 6 Months, 16 Days” above assumes the date when these evil men started us on our plunge to tyranny.
Once the enemies of Liberty set their jaws to destroy that great gift that 56 brave men gave and lost their “Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honors” to secure, all was lost. (The actual length of time from the Articles of Confederation’s ratification till the ratification of the new constitution was 8 Years, 3 Days if anyone cares.)
“After ratification, Congress set dates for the first federal elections and the official implementation of the Constitution. Elections were set to take place on Monday, December 15, 1788, to Saturday, January 10, 1789, and the new government was set to begin on March 4, 1789.”
History buffs (and those fearful of Liberty) would drag out the Connecticut Compromise, but it was all fluff to trick people to put into effect this new tyranny. The reasons the common man went along with this anti-liberty plan was mainly because the common man just wants to live free, mind his own business, to make a life for himself, to raise a healthy family, and to live his life in peace and prosperity if he can.
Fast forward to the 1930’s-1940’s…
“Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps said
First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
“The quotation stems from Niemöller's lectures during the early postwar period. Different versions of the quotation exist. These can be attributed to the fact that Niemöller spoke extemporaneously and in a number of settings. Much controversy surrounds the content of the poem as it has been printed in varying forms, referring to diverse groups such as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Trade Unionists, or Communists depending upon the version. Nonetheless, his point was that Germans—in particular, he believed, the leaders of the Protestant churches—had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.”
One of the most important tenants of the new constitution, the prohibition of ex-post facto laws, is so important it is listed twice in this document.
“An ex-post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex-post facto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.”
This is an important law because… “It's a law that makes an act criminal, even though the act was lawful when it was committed or it can be a law that inflicts a harsher punishment than was permitted when the act was committed.
And this is as far as my guest poster, "TFF", got before losing interest and moving on to other things.
I agree with him that ex-post facto "laws" are utterly despicable.
He invited me to finish this essay for him, but I have a hard time expecting honestly or integrity from government. "What do you expect? It's government!" So I can't really work up the interest to put in an honest effort to do this justice.
But he asked if I would share this, so his effort would be recorded somewhere. I am pleased to do so.
It is with much sadness, sorrow, and regrets that I realize that our great experiment has failed; Our fleeting Liberty has been forever lost.
It lasted a total of 6 Years, 6 Months, 16 Days.
Here are the facts that few Americans even know. (Quoted text from various American History websites which I won’t name. The interested reader will look them up for himself. I fully expect nobody will bother to do so.)
“The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781
“Until the new Constitution was ratified, the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation. The document was tailored to a newly formed nation made of states acting as independent countries, and it quickly became clear to America’s
“The initial purpose of the Convention was for
“Hamilton and James Madison [two of the worse enemies of Liberty this nation has yet seen] led the lobbying efforts for votes in favor of ratifying the Constitution. With assistance from [traitor to Liberty] John Jay, they produced the 85 essays known as “The Federalist Papers” that explained and defended how the proposed new government would function. The essays were published in newspapers nationwide and were pivotal to securing ratification.”
[The anti-federalist papers were ignored by most people because they didn’t understand they were being led astray. Even now that our Liberty is almost gone, still most people won’t even read them! Even now that these papers are digitized and made into audio files, few Americans bother to listen to them!]
It’s anyone’s guess if The Articles of Confederation would have secured Liberty on these shores. It’s impossible to know what could have been.
The exact dates of ratification of the new constitution are listed below, but they really don’t matter. My statement of “6 Years, 6 Months, 16 Days” above assumes the date when these evil men started us on our plunge to tyranny.
Once the enemies of Liberty set their jaws to destroy that great gift that 56 brave men gave and lost their “Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honors” to secure, all was lost. (The actual length of time from the Articles of Confederation’s ratification till the ratification of the new constitution was 8 Years, 3 Days if anyone cares.)
“After ratification, Congress set dates for the first federal elections and the official implementation of the Constitution. Elections were set to take place on Monday, December 15, 1788, to Saturday, January 10, 1789, and the new government was set to begin on March 4, 1789.”
History buffs (and those fearful of Liberty) would drag out the Connecticut Compromise, but it was all fluff to trick people to put into effect this new tyranny. The reasons the common man went along with this anti-liberty plan was mainly because the common man just wants to live free, mind his own business, to make a life for himself, to raise a healthy family, and to live his life in peace and prosperity if he can.
Fast forward to the 1930’s-1940’s…
“Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps said
First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
“The quotation stems from Niemöller's lectures during the early postwar period. Different versions of the quotation exist. These can be attributed to the fact that Niemöller spoke extemporaneously and in a number of settings. Much controversy surrounds the content of the poem as it has been printed in varying forms, referring to diverse groups such as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Trade Unionists, or Communists depending upon the version. Nonetheless, his point was that Germans—in particular, he believed, the leaders of the Protestant churches—had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.”
One of the most important tenants of the new constitution, the prohibition of ex-post facto laws, is so important it is listed twice in this document.
“An ex-post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex-post facto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.”
This is an important law because… “It's a law that makes an act criminal, even though the act was lawful when it was committed or it can be a law that inflicts a harsher punishment than was permitted when the act was committed.
............................................
And this is as far as my guest poster, "TFF", got before losing interest and moving on to other things.
I agree with him that ex-post facto "laws" are utterly despicable.
He invited me to finish this essay for him, but I have a hard time expecting honestly or integrity from government. "What do you expect? It's government!" So I can't really work up the interest to put in an honest effort to do this justice.
But he asked if I would share this, so his effort would be recorded somewhere. I am pleased to do so.
-
The (free) market and Capitalism
I don't usually write "free market" anymore, just "the market", because if it's not free, it's not the market.
"The market" just means voluntary trade without coercion. Government "laws" make a market impossible-- although you can still create a mostly-"free" market through the Black (or Gray) Market.
"Capitalism" is simply the market plus the act of re-investing some of the profits ("capital") back into the market. A true capitalism is impossible under a government (due to the impossibility of a real market coexisting with government), although approximations can exist.
It is possible to have a non-capitalist market if you make no profit, or put none of your profits back into the business (and don't use that money to start another business, either). This will probably be a short-lived dead end, though.
Capitalism is not about "hierarchies", although there is nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchies.
It has nothing to do with exploitation, even though exploitation can happen in any arrangement.
Anarchy isn't anti-capitalist, unless "capitalism" is misidentified and defined incorrectly. Socialism dishonestly posing as "anarchism" is anti-capitalism because socialism is anti-property rights, and you can't have a market if you aren't allowed to own and use property.
"Capitalism" is simply the market plus the act of re-investing some of the profits ("capital") back into the market. A true capitalism is impossible under a government (due to the impossibility of a real market coexisting with government), although approximations can exist.
It is possible to have a non-capitalist market if you make no profit, or put none of your profits back into the business (and don't use that money to start another business, either). This will probably be a short-lived dead end, though.
Capitalism is not about "hierarchies", although there is nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchies.
It has nothing to do with exploitation, even though exploitation can happen in any arrangement.
Anarchy isn't anti-capitalist, unless "capitalism" is misidentified and defined incorrectly. Socialism dishonestly posing as "anarchism" is anti-capitalism because socialism is anti-property rights, and you can't have a market if you aren't allowed to own and use property.
Friday, August 11, 2017
Do "nice guys" rob people politely?
The idea behind the "good cop" delusion seems to run along these lines: If you are robbed by a gentlemanly robber, you weren't really robbed.
And yes, most cops have behaved nicely toward me, even while they robbed me. (Although they have all acted scared while committing their act of enforcement.) Does this excuse the theft? No. That's ridiculous.
A polite archator is still an archator, and is not a "good" person. Ever. Not even if you approve of what they do.
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Spoon-feeding statists
I need more patience with people who have just run across unfamiliar ideas relating to liberty.
Yes, I may have been explaining it for a decade.
Others may have been explaining it for millennia.
I may not feel like explaining it again, in detail, for the hundredth time.
But the new guy doesn't know this. It's brand new to him. He hasn't been along for the ride, but just now noticed the saddled horse waiting for him to hop on. And he's suspicious.
It's something hard to keep in mind, especially when the new guy comes at me with a hostile self-righteous attitude, and the assurance that no one has ever heard anything like his objections before.
I do try to explain. I try to be patient even though I've probably blogged about his precise point before. Maybe more than once. I can explain again, suited to his individual argument, punctuated by links that will help the explanation. Which he will studiously ignore.
When I provide explanatory links rather than typing the whole thing out again, it would be nice if he took the time to read them, instead of wanting it all spelled out and spoon-fed to him. But I've learned that's not how it works. He wants to be spoon-fed, and he wants it pre-digested. No effort.
And that gets old.
But maybe that's what I need to do anyway. If, that is, there is any point in trying to help people have better lives. And that is debatable.
Tuesday, August 08, 2017
I am...
I am a libertarian because I believe in maximizing liberty and minimizing aggression.
I recognize the maximum amount of liberty requires there be no one who can violate liberty free of rightful consequences.
The minimum amount of aggression is zero.
Government is founded on aggression, violations of liberty, and theft.
Therefore I am opposed to any and all externally imposed government, which means I am an anarchist.
All externally imposed governments enslave. Slavery is something else I am vehemently against. This means I am an abolitionist.
Slavery is not voluntary. I believe every human interaction should be voluntary, and that when someone tries to force themselves on you, you have a fundamental human right to defend your life, liberty, and property from their advances. This is why I am a Voluntaryist.
I will embrace whichever of these labels for myself I want, for whatever purpose, whenever it suits me. They are interchangeable, unless you mis-define them.
Monday, August 07, 2017
Derailed!
It's interesting, and not in a good way, how easy it seems for some people to veer Left or Right. Perhaps even for most people.
Some people who I used to believe had their heads on straight, got bogged down in the Social Justice Wanker agenda. So much for them.
Others went off on the alt-right crazy train with the election of Trump. Oops. Have fun with that.
Some have cobbled together some freakish Frankensteinian monster combining the worst of both! Yes, it's as scary as it sounds!
To resist going off-track must be harder than I thought. That makes me sad.
Sunday, August 06, 2017
Government never a friend to liberty
Those who value liberty are often labeled "anti-government" by those who don't understand. It's easy to see how they make this mistake.
People have come to believe liberty-- or "freedom", as they usually call it-- requires government protection in order to exist. Because of this they'll cry out to government whenever they feel threatened or violated. This is a sign the indoctrination has succeeded. However, even when government claims to support liberty, it's harming it.
Government has made itself the enemy of liberty without people noticing. In fact government can't exist alongside liberty; the two are mutually exclusive. Pro-liberty people will appear to be anti-government to those who choose the other side.
I am in favor of legitimate government: self government. I am not in favor of any group, including one chosen by the voting majority, imposing restrictions on people to forbid them from doing what they have a natural human right to do.
What do you have a right to do? Anything and everything which doesn't violate anyone else's rights.
You have the right to keep and use your own property, defend yourself from attackers, smoke Cannabis, and engage in mutually agreeable trade with anyone anywhere, because none of these things violate anyone's rights.
You can't have the right to murder, rob, or enslave, nor to interfere with others doing anything they have the right to do, including things you don't like them doing. You have no right to govern others, and you can't delegate-- to anyone-- a right you don't have. A right which can't exist.
If you somehow create a government which protects property from thieves, but doesn't excuse theft by calling it "taxation", it won't qualify as "government" to most people. If you could create a government which protects everyone's rights, and never allows its employees to commit the very acts it is supposedly protecting people from, it would be different from any government in history. Again, so different no one would consider it government. This is how crooked government has been over the millennia-- it simply couldn't act ethically and be considered "government" by the majority. This is enlightening.
I am against anything most would call government. Not because it is government, but because I oppose theft, aggression, and coercion, no matter who does it; regardless of any justifications they dream up. I am not anti-government, but being pro-liberty looks the same to those who support the State, and place it and its employees beyond accountability.
-
People have come to believe liberty-- or "freedom", as they usually call it-- requires government protection in order to exist. Because of this they'll cry out to government whenever they feel threatened or violated. This is a sign the indoctrination has succeeded. However, even when government claims to support liberty, it's harming it.
Government has made itself the enemy of liberty without people noticing. In fact government can't exist alongside liberty; the two are mutually exclusive. Pro-liberty people will appear to be anti-government to those who choose the other side.
I am in favor of legitimate government: self government. I am not in favor of any group, including one chosen by the voting majority, imposing restrictions on people to forbid them from doing what they have a natural human right to do.
What do you have a right to do? Anything and everything which doesn't violate anyone else's rights.
You have the right to keep and use your own property, defend yourself from attackers, smoke Cannabis, and engage in mutually agreeable trade with anyone anywhere, because none of these things violate anyone's rights.
You can't have the right to murder, rob, or enslave, nor to interfere with others doing anything they have the right to do, including things you don't like them doing. You have no right to govern others, and you can't delegate-- to anyone-- a right you don't have. A right which can't exist.
If you somehow create a government which protects property from thieves, but doesn't excuse theft by calling it "taxation", it won't qualify as "government" to most people. If you could create a government which protects everyone's rights, and never allows its employees to commit the very acts it is supposedly protecting people from, it would be different from any government in history. Again, so different no one would consider it government. This is how crooked government has been over the millennia-- it simply couldn't act ethically and be considered "government" by the majority. This is enlightening.
I am against anything most would call government. Not because it is government, but because I oppose theft, aggression, and coercion, no matter who does it; regardless of any justifications they dream up. I am not anti-government, but being pro-liberty looks the same to those who support the State, and place it and its employees beyond accountability.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Known by those who consider you the enemy
It is said that if you are libertarian, and being consistent, those on the Right will call you a "Leftist" and those on the Left will claim you're part of the "Right".
It seems to me, in some cases at least, I must be doing things right.
On Facebook a while back I wrote "Neither Right nor Left, but the opposite of both those extremely wrong positions."
A guy who is infamous on Facebook for calling libertarians (or anyone who isn't his brand of alt-right) rude names commented "So... far left".
I replied with a link to a page with tips for improving reading comprehension, but it seems my help wasn't appreciated.
Anyway, he went on about how "middle of the road" is always leftist (Mises says so!), and called me a "crypto-commie". I never said I was "middle of the road"-- why would I be standing stupidly in the road at all? I'm not a cow. Standing between two positions (pretending those positions actually differ) is not the opposite of both.
It reminds me of the poor guy who, back in 2010, called me a "COMMUNOFASCISTIC STATIST", and said "Having a discussion with you is akin to touching the 'tar baby'" when I wouldn't buy into the flawed argument he was trying to trap me into agreeing with him on. Nope, I kept countering his every point rather easily (because it was a subject I've studied a lot), and he didn't like it. So he snapped on me.
Somehow, being called mean names by people who believe theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery can somehow be "better" than NOT committing theft and aggression seems like a compliment to me. I'll survive it.
Saturday, August 05, 2017
Food costs
 |
| Worth it, but not free |
Have you ever seen the silly meme saying something like: "If we all gardened and traded our surplus with each other, we could eat for free!"?
When I see that I wonder what the person's definition of "free" is.
I think of "free" as meaning "without cost"; something for nothing.
Even when I pick Rocket Mustard, purslane, or prickly pear out of the yard to eat, there is a cost. It takes labor. Both for harvesting and for preparing.
If I were to garden, the cost would be even greater. There's labor, supplies, and (around here, anyway) water. TANSTAAFL, you know. Maybe you can avoid a bit of "taxation" this way, though.
Anyone who thinks only in terms of money traded for the food is missing almost everything related to cost.
This doesn't mean I am opposed to growing your own and trading the surplus. I'm not. I think it's a great thing to do and I encourage everyone to try it. But let's not fool ourselves that the food produced is in any way "free".
Friday, August 04, 2017
"Filthy parasites"
A while back, someone got upset because I called cops "filthy parasites" and said I was just "name calling".
Well, let's see...
Parasite
par·a·siteˈperəˌsīt/ noun
- an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
- (derogatory)
- a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.
Let's look at this one part at a time.
Cops are organisms. I don't believe anyone disputes that fact.
Cops live on other organisms, perhaps not physically but certainly at their expense.
Cops benefit by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. When a cop buys food with his paycheck, he is getting nutrients at his host's expense, since the money used to buy the food was stolen from the hosts (you and me). His food purchase (and every other purchase he makes) reduces the amount of resources you have with which to benefit yourself. His existence costs you.
So, yes, a cop satisfies the first definition to a T.
What about the second part?
A cop is a person.
They rely on other people for their existence as a cop. Without other people believing cops are "necessary", the "job" wouldn't exist.
Cops exploit others. They "make full use of and derive benefit from" other people. This goes back to the first definition.
They do so habitually-- on a daily basis as a condition of holding that "job". If they stop exploiting people, they lose the "job".
Now, do they give "nothing in return"?
That depends. A rapist gives "something", but it is something unwanted and harmful. Of course, the same could be said of a tapeworm.
The lack of consent makes the difference. I don't consent to rape, nor do I consent to being policed.
In spite of objections to the contrary, the reality, by definition, is that cops ARE parasites.
I consider all parasites to be "filthy". If you don't, that's fine with me.
Thursday, August 03, 2017
They're here...
 |
| But, if they all looked like Liv... |
The zombies, that is.
America is a Zombocracy- a region ruled by zombies. These mindless brain-eaters are also known as government employees.
Cops, politicians, bureau-craps, and all the rest.
I said they are mindless, but that's not quite true. They share a hive mind driven by the instinct to devour anyone who isn't one of their own. And their disease seems contagious.
Wednesday, August 02, 2017
Does that seem right to you?
Someone I care about is facing a sentencing on September 8, to plea bargain in an attempt to avoid a cage.
I don't know if she did what she is charged with doing. It seems completely out of character, based on what I know of her due to a friendship that has lasted 17+ years so far. And, it is completely irrelevant to my current objections, anyway. If she did what they claim, she owes someone restitution, and that "someone" isn't the State. The State's injustice system doesn't even have justice on the radar, but seeks only to punish.
So, on to my points:
Her lawyer told her that she has only two options-- plead guilty in a bid to avoid jail time, or go to jail. His reasoning? There is no evidence, and she confessed.
Seems to me "no evidence" should be in her favor-- innocent until PROVEN guilty is the lie we are fed.
Of course, when she "confessed" she was mentally ill-- in fact, this was so obvious to everyone involved she was immediately sent to a psych hospital and put on psych medication after she was booked. She has always had mental issues, and physical brain problems (epilepsy, for one). How is a confession under those circumstances even admissible?
Also, her lawyer admitted to her that he has become friends with the DA during the course of his "defense". Conflict of interest? Seems clear to me.
I don't know if her lawyer is a public defender or an actual defense lawyer. Either way it seems he wants to save his buddies in the DA's office some trouble, and is railroading his client into unnecessary trouble. Not ethical behavior at all.
If I had the money I would pay to get her a real defense lawyer; one committed to truth and justice, and not just pragmatic convenience and keeping his political friends happy.
Tuesday, August 01, 2017
How to disappoint me
The fastest way for me to become disappointed in someone I care about is for them to take a government "job". That'll do it every time.
It doesn't matter how "respectable" others believe that "job" is.
It doesn't matter if the "job" is believed to be "necessary" or "helpful".
It doesn't matter how badly you need the "job".
It doesn't matter if it's a "job" also filled in the voluntary sector.
It doesn't matter if I still like you and think you are basically a "good" person.
It doesn't matter how much (stolen) money it pays.
If you side with government to get money, I am disappointed in you.
Whether that matters or not is a separate issue altogether.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Counterfeit "laws" create a market for lawyers
If a law is such that you have to look it up to see what it says; to see what it says you are allowed to do (or prohibited from doing), it's not a real law.
If it is written so that you need a lawyer to interpret it for you after you look it up, to tell you if something is "legal" or not, that "law" is even worse. In fact, it's an even clearer sign that the "law" is counterfeit.
The mere existence of lawyers is irrefutable evidence that the majority of "laws" are counterfeit.
Of course, who do you think writes those counterfeit "laws" to give themselves "job security"? Quite a racket, if you can keep getting away with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)