Every time I turned on a faucet for the past few weeks, that question crossed my mind. Along with, just how much water do I need for this? Right now?
It made me realize I do that to myself all the time, with other issues.
Is it necessary to spend this dollar?
Is it necessary to go? Is it necessary to drive there?
Is it necessary to do this?
Is this argument necessary?
If it is necessary, I do it with open eyes and (usually) a clear conscience.
Often, I realize something I was about to do isn't necessary, and I don't do it.
If it's not necessary, that doesn't mean I won't do it. Some unnecessary things are important enough- to me- to do anyway, but it's good to do them with that understanding; not mindlessly on autopilot.
I also know there are things I see as unnecessary that others feel are very necessary. Government, for example. Too bad they can't have their "necessity", but keep it off my property and out of my life. Because liberty is necessary for me, and their government fetish prevents it.
Everyone who advocates that others be governed has some issue they'd be willing to see the State kill you over to prevent you from doing what you have a right to do. Just because they don't like it.
This includes "libertarians" who have some issue they'll defend the State's position on. And there are a lot of them. I suspect some are lying because they don't want statists to think badly of them, or they have seen how libertarians who stood up to the authoritarian narrative were treated in the past. I get it.
They'd be better off keeping their mouths shut than defending the State's position, but they don't.
A current example is public spyware. I can't get over the supposed libertarians who are defending Flock cameras, using the excuse that you don't have the right to not be photographed by a random stranger in public. That's not even close to the same thing.
If a random stranger took photos of you in public places, then used the information gained in those photos to track you down to rob, kidnap, cage, or murder you, you have the right to use deadly force against that stranger. (The State might dispute this, but the State is often wrong.)
You have the same right if that stranger works for government and uses Flock spyware, but you aren't "allowed" to defend yourself in this case. No matter how blatant the violation or how immediate the threat. Why do these people pretend they can't see the difference?
If the "law" allows you to be photographed and tracked so that your life, liberty, and property can be violated, the "law" is wrong. If the "law" forbids you from defending yourself from someone doing this, the "law" is wrong.
I'll stand up to those who say otherwise, and I'll question their motivations and their ethics.
But, I admit life would be simpler if I just went along with the mainstream and begged for safety instead of demanding liberty. Instead of sticking up for uncomfortable rights and inconvenient liberty.
I had one educate me with this brilliant observation:
"Go to Europe dummy, they pay more in taxes and live the best life’s. Your taxes are stolen to,build a basketball arena instead of giving you a healthcare program. Stop electing a**hats that squander your taxes -problem solved"
There is so much wrong there; it's hard to address it all. I responded:
"Yeah, I see how your "healthcare" programs work. No thanks. I can spend MY OWN MONEY better than anyone else can spend it for me."
Maybe he's the one who should go to Europe, since he likes their taxation so much.
I also could have pointed out that paying taxes is the problem, not necessarily what the stolen money is used for. My objection isn't that the money is stolen then squandered, but that it is stolen at all in the first place.
I could have pointed out that "the best life's" is subjective. Higher taxation isn't going to improve my life in ways that matter to me. In fact, taxation lowers the quality of my life considerably.
I could have pointed out that I don't support anyone being "elected" to rule, but statists impose these people on me regardless of my wishes. Electing different political criminals isn't going to fix things, or magically change taxation into something other than theft.
His "solution" solves nothing. But people like him are so hypnotized by statism that they can't even imagine an alternative. And, he's rude.
Spying on me, tracking me, and controlling me is not an improvement to my life.
Nasty little cowards who are afraid of the world and want Big Brother to keep them safe feel otherwise. Unfortunately, a lot of new technology is tailor-made for them. They beg for it, and someone is creepy enough to give it to them. Or, more accurately, someone will create it and sell it to The State, which is evil enough to use it against all of us on behalf of those people. For "safety".
Because of this, I can relate to people who are anti-technology. I'm trying not to join them, but I understand where they are coming from. They are better people than those making and deploying technology to spy, track, and control the rest of us.
Instead, I've seen intelligent people grasp at straw men, misunderstand the topic, deflect, project, and flat-out lie.
As soon as I read "The problem with libertarianism is that, just like socialism, it...:" I know I'm in for some weapons-grade enriched Retardium.
Personally, in all these tactics, I only see their irrational fear. Regardless, they invariably believe they've done what they set out to do.
Unfortunately for them, that's not the case.
It's obvious they care more about hating liberty and loving government than about getting it right. Why? Because politics.
More than 30 years ago, when I decided to add knife throwing to my Rendezvous skills, I didn't like any of the (Rendezvous-acceptable) commercial throwing knives out there. Most didn't even resemble knives.
But I found one advertised as a "throwing bowie" in the Atlanta Cutlery catalog. It was also cheap! (I think it was $20 at the time.) So I ordered it.
Back then, I was considerably worse at throwing a knife than I am now, and the brass guard broke off almost immediately. That was fine and expected. I also hated the weird hook at the butt end of the grip. It only got in the way, so I ground it off. The wood grip shattered before too long. The knife went through a few different wooden replacement grips until I replaced them with leather (secured with peened nails and washers) a few months ago. I had rawhide protecting the front of the handle scales most of that time, but it became a bigger problem than help, so it got removed a couple of months ago.
The leather handle was installed around the time I started practicing throwing my tomahawk and knife daily again. (I had taken a decade and a half break from regular throwing, just because. That was a mistake!) This handle is already showing heavy wear, but has been surprisingly resilient. As I had hoped.
Other problems soon started showing up, though.
A bad throw is hard on the knife, and some days I'm having to bend the blade back straight every few throws. That's not going to be good for the longevity of the blade, so I started thinking about a replacement before this one snaps in half and takes me out of practice for weeks. I was pleased to see Atlanta Cutlery still offers the same knife for a comparable price, and a few weeks ago, I bit the bullet and ordered one. (A huge "Thank you!" to my subscribers for allowing me to do this!)
The shape of the blade is a little different than my original one, but that's not an issue. It's probably due to differences in the particular Pakistani knife maker rather than a design change.
This past weekend, I had some time to relax, and I used that opportunity to go ahead and shape the knife into the throwing knife I want.
I've learned a few things about a throwing knife as I want mine to be over decades of experience.
First, I once again got rid of the horrible hooked beak at the butt of the grip, and smoothed the wood where I removed it.
Then, I removed most of the brass guard (before it has a chance to snap off), leaving just enough to protect the anterior of the wooden handle scales. I'm hoping that works to make the wood grips last longer, but if not, it's educational. I ground and filed the guard so that it doesn't stick above the top or bottom of the blade, hoping that keeps it from snagging on the target and breaking if (OK, when) I miss.
If it doesn't work as I hope, I still have this new blade and I can put new leather handle scales on it anytime. I've learned some things about that, too.
I then took it out and gave it 6 test throws. It worked great and didn't get any damage- helped by the fact that I didn't miss the target (I did, however, stick it too weakly once, and it fell out). Now I'll keep it as a spare for when Old Bendy finally gives up the ghost. I feel a lot better having a spare, and I'm no longer worried that ACC will discontinue this model just when I need a new one.
That's partially how I misspent my weekend. It was fun.
That doesn't necessarily make them a good person, just like someone being wrong about something doesn't make them a bad person.
Whoever it is, keep the good and throw out the bad.
Government either imported (trafficked) the migrants or coddles their criminal behavior while forbidding the victims from using self-defense (and the proper tools designed for that purpose).
I see videos from Europe, and what I see is governments causing, or at least failing to prevent, the attacks. And punishing those who actually do something about the problem- like trying to defend themselves and others.
Then, people who don't see to the root of the problem blame the criminal migrants instead of the political criminals who essentially gave them permission to do what they do.
Tar and feather the politicians, and the problem would quickly solve itself.
Water is essential, and I was willing to help, even knowing that the Tragedy of the Commons meant that many people wouldn't cut back. I was not one of those calling for them to be "fined" or otherwise punished.
But, being who I am, I don't trust government. Amounts ("85,000 gallons", "4 feet", etc.) were posted without context. That always tells me someone is trying to deceive. So I took it upon myself to check the water levels myself.
There are 4 water tanks in town, 3 of which have gauges that are easy to see and read. The fourth, a water sphere tower, has no way to be read by the public. Someone suggested a laser thermometer gun, but the ones with the necessary precision to read something at the distance involved would be too expensive, so I'll have to ignore that one.
What I discovered was that the tanks weren't as empty as we were being led to believe.
I wanted to document this, so I have been photographing the water gauges every day and posting the photos online. The funny thing is that as soon as my first photos were online, the story changed a little, and it was admitted that the tanks were "almost full". (That was fast!)
I wish I had been watching in the months leading up to the crisis to see what the "normal" water levels are. I suspect we are close.
But none of that is useful for the agenda to buy the land that the city commissioners want to buy, from a crony- a deal that was roundly condemned as a bad deal two years ago when it was proposed and a petition was circulated against it. The government still wants this deal (no other) and is still pushing this as the only possible solution. They are still trying to scare people into accepting this plan.
But...
The worst restrictions have been lifted. Lawn watering is being discouraged and limited to one day per week per address. It will be interesting to see the effect of this, seeing how much water my parents used on the one day in the last billing cycle when they watered their backyard.
If it makes a big difference, I will be there to see it myself so that the rulers can't gaslight the population with more fearmongering. Combined with my open condemnation of the local Flock spyware, I'm probably putting myself in danger.
People who constantly parrot cop talking points (squawking points?) and threaten to report people for defending liberty or breaking a counterfeit "law" are at least as bad as the cops. Maybe worse.
Those who support cops may do so because they imagine that at least the cops are "tough guys" fighting on their side against freelance criminals.
They aren't.
These cop supporters are simply supporting gang warfare between competing gangs. Gangs often fight each other because they want power over the territory and its residents, and they don't want to share this power with other gangs. This power struggle doesn't make the residents safer- especially when they get caught in the crossfire (which is common). It's just to decide who gets to rob and molest the residents; there's no option for being left to live in peace as long as you imagine you have to choose between the criminal gangs.
And remember that much of the crime that empowers freelance gangs (and other criminals) is directly created by rights-violating legislation made up by political criminals and enforced by the police.
Cop supporters are the people who would have been reporting Jews in the attic and capturing runaway slaves. They are the ones currently defending Flock spyware and crying for more "safety" because they are scared of life. Or, because they hate others more than they value liberty. Either one is equally terrible.
I'm not sure how long America can survive these people. Or, if it is already dead at their hands.
Playing the word game of "legal vs lawful" doesn't seem to get anywhere either. Not as long as the bad guys- the Statists- own and run the courts you are forced to use. They see no difference unless it serves their purpose.
"Sovereign citizens" [sic] are obsessed with "legal", and it doesn't really get them anywhere, except put in a cage.
I see all sorts of people saying, "Use this one weird legal trick or say these words and ..." government will leave you alone or something. I've never seen it work. Not unless the cops you've encountered aren't that committed to hauling you in or shooting you- today.
Maybe, just maybe, if you're a lawyer, you can make it work. I've seen little to no evidence of this. Not in any way that makes a substantive difference.
Depending on the Constitution or various legislative maneuvers to protect your liberty is a fool's pursuit. I understand why people try it. I don't understand why they don't give it up once it's obvious it's not going to work for them.
No, it's up to you to live your liberty and defend it from all violators. Just keep in mind, it won't be legal. You'll be an outlaw.
This was in the early to mid-1950s.
Once I pointed out how much the silver in two quarters would be worth today, he changed his tune a little. That would be equal to about $23.40 per hour. Much more than my daughter is earning.
If you're only adjusting for inflation- like if the guy gave him FRNs instead of hard money- that's only about $6.23 per hour. Not as good. In that case, my daughter is coming out ahead.
Anyone should still be grateful for their job, whatever it pays. No one is obligated to hire you. It is nice, though, if you make enough money to make the job worth the effort. It's sad how much of that pay gets stolen by the state, just because the state exists and feels entitled to your property.
Government sure likes to steal our money, one way or the other.
Perhaps they forgot the Ninth Amendment.
Whether that’s the case or not, they are making two big errors.
Their first mistake: Unless the Constitution explicitly allows government to do a thing, it is prohibited for government to do that thing. They get this backwards, pretending that government is allowed to do anything not explicitly prohibited and that only those things specifically listed are your rights. This is where the Ninth Amendment comes in. They ignore that one.
The second huge mistake they make is that even if the Constitution explicitly allows government to do something which violates life, liberty, or property, it’s still wrong for government to do that, and the Constitution is wrong for allowing it. That is a counterfeit “law”; a rule with no ethical foundation whatsoever.
If the Supreme Court takes government's side, it is wrong.
If someone insists that you obey such a rule until it gets changed, just like you should turn in runaway slaves until it's no longer "the law" to do so, you know they are on the wrong side. They are the bad guy here.
This is how you can tell such a person is a government supremacist, and probably a Statanist.
You have the right to privacy because that right doesn't violate anyone else's right to life, liberty, or privacy in any way. That's the bottom line, not the opinions of political criminals who want to spy on you to find (or invent) a "crime" to use against you.
