Liberty? In Albuquerque?
Can you really have liberty in Albuquerque? Being a big city there are more violations of your rights and limits on your freedoms in Albuquerque than in most smaller towns, and vastly more than in rural areas. Yet, if you are smart, and maybe a little sneaky, you can still experience liberty.
Think of it as a game, because in a very real way it is. The fact that the bad guys, those authoritarians who hate you for daring to live free, will kill you for making a wrong move doesn't take away the game aspects. It just makes it more important to win. The only way to truly "lose" the liberty game is to not even try. The fact of the matter is that we are all playing the game whether we wanted to or not, and no one finishes the game while they are alive. You might as well find a way to have fun while you play.
There is no need to flee the city for liberty. Big cities offer things that are very enriching and important to a lot of people. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. There is a vibrancy in having so many people to interact with and so many choices of things to see and do that many people would get bored stiff without. Not me, but "many people".
In most cases (but not all), unless you attract the attention of a LEO in some way, you will be ignored. Don't dress like a doughnut and don't walk around swatting at the invisible faeries that swarm around your head. Do what you know to be the right thing. Obey "laws" that are not unduly restrictive when there are busybodies about, otherwise ignore them. Think of the state as you would any other mafia, and make the payoffs you can't avoid, and don't feel guilty about the rest. Remember that it isn't wrong to lie to aggressors or liars- and that is all the government consists of. Carry your chosen weapon concealed and make a habit of avoiding metal detectors or coming up with expedient weapons where a metal detector or pedophile-o-vision can't be avoided. If you open carry, as is still your "legal" right, pay attention to your surroundings and don't let the predatory LEOs catch you off guard and sneak up from behind, or surround you. Suffer from mental lapses or numerical dyslexia when asked for your slave numbers. Assume liberty, but stay alert to those who assume they own you and believe they have the authority to require you to die for their convenience.
Choose your battles and pick your playing level. If you stand out like a pumpkin in a strawberry patch you will obviously attract more attention than the freedom outlaw strawberry who blends in with his surroundings. For you, individuality may be important enough to accept the greater risk. No one can blame you for your choices as long as you deal with your consequences.
Realize that there will be times you make a bad move, or the organs of the city or state will get lucky. You may get punished, and it will not be right or "fair". Don't mistake that for a loss; it is just a temporary set-back as long as you are still breathing. Either way, your life will be richer because you didn't just bend over and take it. One person at a time is how liberty is spread. One person at a time the job of the enforcers and other aggressors can be made more frustrating and pointless, and their lies will be laid bare. Life is a rush for the liberated human. When your life is finished, don't just wish you had given it a try.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Abusive Albuquerque teacher is just a symptom
Abusive Albuquerque teacher is just a symptom
A local mother is understandably upset that an Albuquerque special education teacher taped her son's mouth shut. As horrible as this act was, the fact that public government schools bind the students' minds all day long in every school should make people fighting mad.
Many children behave terribly. Of that there is no doubt. However, if you can't handle that fact of life without becoming abusive you are in the wrong line of work. In a free society no "teacher" of this sort would likely keep a job after the first offense.
The unfortunate truth is that the "system" the government has embraced and labeled "education" is not suited for most healthy, active young people. It magnifies and reinforces bad behavior all in the name of "discipline" and "conformity".
Public schools are the reproductive organs of the state. They are more honestly referred to as "government indoctrination centers" and are prisons used to punish kids for the "crime" of being between certain ages. Public schools train pliable minds to not think of alternatives to coercion and authoritarianism. Without this brainwashing few people would grow up to accept the status quo of government control over all aspects of their lives and the run-away socialism that calls itself by so many euphemisms. This is why, even when home schooling is "allowed", the state tries to make sure just enough of the toxic statism meme is introduced into the young minds to make the state's job easier later on. It comes from both the "left" and the "right". Call it "patriotism" or "social awareness"; the results are the same.
Then there is the physical slave training that public schools engage in. From begging permission (which is sometimes denied) to take care of bodily needs, to the Pavlovian training regarding obedience to the schedule of the bells, schools are actively training children to accept their place as someone else's property. Once you understand this, how can you allow your children to be abused that way even one more day?
For an eye-opening education on the education racket, read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education and support the Alliance for the Separation of School and State. Education is MUCH too important to let government control it in any way.
A local mother is understandably upset that an Albuquerque special education teacher taped her son's mouth shut. As horrible as this act was, the fact that public government schools bind the students' minds all day long in every school should make people fighting mad.
Many children behave terribly. Of that there is no doubt. However, if you can't handle that fact of life without becoming abusive you are in the wrong line of work. In a free society no "teacher" of this sort would likely keep a job after the first offense.
The unfortunate truth is that the "system" the government has embraced and labeled "education" is not suited for most healthy, active young people. It magnifies and reinforces bad behavior all in the name of "discipline" and "conformity".
Public schools are the reproductive organs of the state. They are more honestly referred to as "government indoctrination centers" and are prisons used to punish kids for the "crime" of being between certain ages. Public schools train pliable minds to not think of alternatives to coercion and authoritarianism. Without this brainwashing few people would grow up to accept the status quo of government control over all aspects of their lives and the run-away socialism that calls itself by so many euphemisms. This is why, even when home schooling is "allowed", the state tries to make sure just enough of the toxic statism meme is introduced into the young minds to make the state's job easier later on. It comes from both the "left" and the "right". Call it "patriotism" or "social awareness"; the results are the same.
Then there is the physical slave training that public schools engage in. From begging permission (which is sometimes denied) to take care of bodily needs, to the Pavlovian training regarding obedience to the schedule of the bells, schools are actively training children to accept their place as someone else's property. Once you understand this, how can you allow your children to be abused that way even one more day?
For an eye-opening education on the education racket, read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education and support the Alliance for the Separation of School and State. Education is MUCH too important to let government control it in any way.
Albuquerque, Albuquerque, Albuquerque
In case you have noticed more emphasis on "Albuquerque" in my Examiner columns, it is because Examiner.com has changed how we writers are paid. In fact, they have changed how they decide if they will keep the writers altogether.
Now, "local content" is critical. Of course, as I have pointed out to Examiner many, many times I DO NOT LIVE IN OR NEAR ALBUQUERQUE. If I don't write about "local" Albuquerque stuff, I will be financially penalized and may lose my spot on Examiner completely. My communications with Examiner have met with some completely off-topic and pointless replies.
So, I now look online for ABQ news, and use what I find as a jumping-off point for writing the same sorts of things I would write anyway. In some ways it's easier; in others it irritates the heck out of me. Reading the news is like drinking lye to me. The really disgusting thing is when I do this and still get an email from Examiner saying a particular column doesn't qualify. Like I got today.
But, I need the money. So, buy my books, please, so I won't depend as much on Examiner!
Indy-Pindy
Kent's Liberty Primer
Sandy's Legacy
-------------------------
Now, "local content" is critical. Of course, as I have pointed out to Examiner many, many times I DO NOT LIVE IN OR NEAR ALBUQUERQUE. If I don't write about "local" Albuquerque stuff, I will be financially penalized and may lose my spot on Examiner completely. My communications with Examiner have met with some completely off-topic and pointless replies.
So, I now look online for ABQ news, and use what I find as a jumping-off point for writing the same sorts of things I would write anyway. In some ways it's easier; in others it irritates the heck out of me. Reading the news is like drinking lye to me. The really disgusting thing is when I do this and still get an email from Examiner saying a particular column doesn't qualify. Like I got today.
But, I need the money. So, buy my books, please, so I won't depend as much on Examiner!
Indy-Pindy
Kent's Liberty Primer
Sandy's Legacy
-------------------------
Monday, January 25, 2010
Nannies worry about 'new' drugs
Nannies worry about 'new' drugs
Welcome to the law of unintended consequences, Albuquerque authoritarians. Because of the disastrous "War on (some) Drugs", which only you support, some people are turning to things such as Salvia and Gonjah for thrills.
Don't act surprised by the entirely logical and predictable outcome of your control-freak behavior, and don't repeat your standard knee-jerk mistake of passing new "laws" to cover the "new" intoxicants. It has never, not in all of human history, worked, and it isn't going to work "next time" either.
If you (or others like you) make one thing "illegal" then those who, for one reason or another, still care about your ridiculous edicts will find something else, something you haven't yet criminalized, in order to get the same or similar effect. The next thing may not be as safe as Cannabis. In fact it may be as destructive when abused as alcohol.
The desire to "get high" is ingrained so deeply that it is just a part of being human. Even very young children spin endlessly until too dizzy to stand for the same exact sensation. This isn't "learned behavior". "Laws" and draconian punishments will never suppress that desire. A risk of damaged health or even death can't stop it, why do you think the threat of violence by the state's thugs will?
The "costs of drug use", if looked at with discernment, can be clearly seen to actually be costs of penalizing "drug use" in almost every instance. From aggression to "crime" to imprisonment, and even "impaired behavior" accidents; almost all can be traced back to the way "drug use" is dealt with by society and the state rather than as an inevitable consequence of using the substance. The people who use the substances without being caught suffer almost none of the societal ill-effects which are used to justify prohibition.
Even if a substance had a 50% or higher mortality rate, it is still out of reach of the legitimate authority of anyone to prohibit others from using it on themselves. Your favorite drug, "Government", has a very, very high mortality rate, and yet it is about the only thing still "legal".
Neither is the answer to "legalize" and tax "drugs", in spite of what some suggest. The state "needs" and deserves no money at all. I would rather see "drugs" kept "illegal" to keep the money out of the wrong hands than to allow government to profit from the sale and use of more substances.
It is long past time to once again get government out of our medicine cabinets. End the unethical "War on Drugs" and return to the sanity of treating the addicts who need help and leaving everyone else alone.
**************************
A hearty "Welcome back to the world of blogging" to Claire Wolfe! You have been missed!
************************
Here is another review of Indy-Pindy, this time from The Price of Liberty.
**************************
Welcome to the law of unintended consequences, Albuquerque authoritarians. Because of the disastrous "War on (some) Drugs", which only you support, some people are turning to things such as Salvia and Gonjah for thrills.
Don't act surprised by the entirely logical and predictable outcome of your control-freak behavior, and don't repeat your standard knee-jerk mistake of passing new "laws" to cover the "new" intoxicants. It has never, not in all of human history, worked, and it isn't going to work "next time" either.
If you (or others like you) make one thing "illegal" then those who, for one reason or another, still care about your ridiculous edicts will find something else, something you haven't yet criminalized, in order to get the same or similar effect. The next thing may not be as safe as Cannabis. In fact it may be as destructive when abused as alcohol.
The desire to "get high" is ingrained so deeply that it is just a part of being human. Even very young children spin endlessly until too dizzy to stand for the same exact sensation. This isn't "learned behavior". "Laws" and draconian punishments will never suppress that desire. A risk of damaged health or even death can't stop it, why do you think the threat of violence by the state's thugs will?
The "costs of drug use", if looked at with discernment, can be clearly seen to actually be costs of penalizing "drug use" in almost every instance. From aggression to "crime" to imprisonment, and even "impaired behavior" accidents; almost all can be traced back to the way "drug use" is dealt with by society and the state rather than as an inevitable consequence of using the substance. The people who use the substances without being caught suffer almost none of the societal ill-effects which are used to justify prohibition.
Even if a substance had a 50% or higher mortality rate, it is still out of reach of the legitimate authority of anyone to prohibit others from using it on themselves. Your favorite drug, "Government", has a very, very high mortality rate, and yet it is about the only thing still "legal".
Neither is the answer to "legalize" and tax "drugs", in spite of what some suggest. The state "needs" and deserves no money at all. I would rather see "drugs" kept "illegal" to keep the money out of the wrong hands than to allow government to profit from the sale and use of more substances.
It is long past time to once again get government out of our medicine cabinets. End the unethical "War on Drugs" and return to the sanity of treating the addicts who need help and leaving everyone else alone.
**************************
A hearty "Welcome back to the world of blogging" to Claire Wolfe! You have been missed!
************************
Here is another review of Indy-Pindy, this time from The Price of Liberty.
**************************
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Want a better world? Don't impose your values on others
Want a better world? Don't impose your values on others
Browsing through the "news" I find a lot of evidence that people don't wish to deal with things themselves. They would rather send the hired guns of government in their place. This is the lazy coward's way out, and it is wrong.
The whole "texting and driving" issue is but one example. Another is the recent focus on "blight" in Clovis.
If something really is a problem that needs to be solved- and that isn't always as clear as some would want you to think it is- then the proper way to deal with it is to take care of it yourself. The wrong way is to pass another "law" that will then use the guns of government (paid for with money stolen from the very people at whom those guns end up being aimed) to enforce your values on people who obviously do not share them.
It is your responsibility to watch out for yourself.
It is your responsibility to not initiate force, not personally and not by proxy.
It is your responsibility to be aware of your surroundings and remember that others may not be aware of theirs.
It is your responsibility to mind your own business.
It is your responsibility to respect the rights of others and to keep in mind that you have no right to not be offended and that a real right never imposes an obligation on another person, no matter how much you wish it would, and no matter what your justifications might be.
And, if something annoys or upsets you, it is your responsibility to take steps, at your own expense and on your own property, to shield yourself from that annoyance. It is not up to the one who is annoying you as long as he is not trespassing or threatening you.
This makes me think of the "Serenity Prayer", which states: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference." Yet, one thing (not the only thing) about this "prayer" has always bothered me. Not everything that can be changed, should be changed. Real wisdom needs to be able to tell the difference there as well, if serenity is ever to be found. Getting over the addiction of feeling that you have the right to control the non-aggressive behavior of others can be extremely liberating. Give it a try.
Don't forget to check out and contribute to Project LTE. A letter-to-the-editor needs you!
Notice the mighty fine "Time's Up" flag near the end of this post on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.
Browsing through the "news" I find a lot of evidence that people don't wish to deal with things themselves. They would rather send the hired guns of government in their place. This is the lazy coward's way out, and it is wrong.
The whole "texting and driving" issue is but one example. Another is the recent focus on "blight" in Clovis.
If something really is a problem that needs to be solved- and that isn't always as clear as some would want you to think it is- then the proper way to deal with it is to take care of it yourself. The wrong way is to pass another "law" that will then use the guns of government (paid for with money stolen from the very people at whom those guns end up being aimed) to enforce your values on people who obviously do not share them.
It is your responsibility to watch out for yourself.
It is your responsibility to not initiate force, not personally and not by proxy.
It is your responsibility to be aware of your surroundings and remember that others may not be aware of theirs.
It is your responsibility to mind your own business.
It is your responsibility to respect the rights of others and to keep in mind that you have no right to not be offended and that a real right never imposes an obligation on another person, no matter how much you wish it would, and no matter what your justifications might be.
And, if something annoys or upsets you, it is your responsibility to take steps, at your own expense and on your own property, to shield yourself from that annoyance. It is not up to the one who is annoying you as long as he is not trespassing or threatening you.
This makes me think of the "Serenity Prayer", which states: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference." Yet, one thing (not the only thing) about this "prayer" has always bothered me. Not everything that can be changed, should be changed. Real wisdom needs to be able to tell the difference there as well, if serenity is ever to be found. Getting over the addiction of feeling that you have the right to control the non-aggressive behavior of others can be extremely liberating. Give it a try.
Don't forget to check out and contribute to Project LTE. A letter-to-the-editor needs you!
Notice the mighty fine "Time's Up" flag near the end of this post on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Texting and driving is a battleground for liberty
Texting and driving is a battleground for liberty
Come on, New Mexico. Grow up and resist the peer pressure. If all the other states jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too? Well, if the bridge is marked "Texting and driving laws", it seems the answer might be an enthusiastic "yes".
"There oughta be a law...". With that phrase, time after time, freedom has been lost and rights have been violated. It happens every time some "well-meaning" person recognizes a problem without being able to think of a rational solution. Will a new "law" prevent texting drivers from being the cause of accidents? Don't bet on it. All it will do is give the enforcers an excuse for shaking down drivers and provide a new source of income, stolen income, for the state.
New "laws" are never the answer. An anti-texting (and anti-phoning) "law" will do nothing for anyone who is hurt in an accident; it will only be misused like all other "laws" inevitably are. People who cause accidents are already punished, so there is no need to provide for another punishment on top of the existing excuses for punishment. This "law" will only be used on those people who have not harmed anyone on the assumption that they might, in the future, cause an accident.
Then there is the added insult of criminalizing the peaceful act of talking on the phone while driving- without a "hands-free device" anyway. If this becomes the "law", then it must be applied equally to any LEO who talks on his police radio while driving. There is no difference in the two actions.
What's the next "big danger" to be forbidden? Talking to people in the car with you? Listening to the radio? Thinking?
When will this insanity end? This law pollution, making sure there is a "law" covering every possible action a person might take, dilutes all the "laws"; making them all less likely to be followed. When everything is either prohibited or mandatory people tend to ignore the "law" entirely. To me this is a good thing. The drawback is when some people only get their "ethics" from what the state says is right or wrong. These people, instead of just ignoring ridiculous "laws", reject right and wrong altogether, unable to tell the difference due to too many "laws" that remove their need to think for themselves.
Is it smart to text while you drive? Probably not. Will the new "law" have unintended consequences? They all do.
"Laws" can never replace personal responsibility. If someone causes harm, they need to pay restitution. Until then, mind your own business. And, as always, pay attention to the other drivers- because you can NEVER count on them paying attention to you, texting or not. "Laws" are just an excuse to abdicate your own responsibility and hand it over to someone else.
Come on, New Mexico. Grow up and resist the peer pressure. If all the other states jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too? Well, if the bridge is marked "Texting and driving laws", it seems the answer might be an enthusiastic "yes".
"There oughta be a law...". With that phrase, time after time, freedom has been lost and rights have been violated. It happens every time some "well-meaning" person recognizes a problem without being able to think of a rational solution. Will a new "law" prevent texting drivers from being the cause of accidents? Don't bet on it. All it will do is give the enforcers an excuse for shaking down drivers and provide a new source of income, stolen income, for the state.
New "laws" are never the answer. An anti-texting (and anti-phoning) "law" will do nothing for anyone who is hurt in an accident; it will only be misused like all other "laws" inevitably are. People who cause accidents are already punished, so there is no need to provide for another punishment on top of the existing excuses for punishment. This "law" will only be used on those people who have not harmed anyone on the assumption that they might, in the future, cause an accident.
Then there is the added insult of criminalizing the peaceful act of talking on the phone while driving- without a "hands-free device" anyway. If this becomes the "law", then it must be applied equally to any LEO who talks on his police radio while driving. There is no difference in the two actions.
What's the next "big danger" to be forbidden? Talking to people in the car with you? Listening to the radio? Thinking?
When will this insanity end? This law pollution, making sure there is a "law" covering every possible action a person might take, dilutes all the "laws"; making them all less likely to be followed. When everything is either prohibited or mandatory people tend to ignore the "law" entirely. To me this is a good thing. The drawback is when some people only get their "ethics" from what the state says is right or wrong. These people, instead of just ignoring ridiculous "laws", reject right and wrong altogether, unable to tell the difference due to too many "laws" that remove their need to think for themselves.
Is it smart to text while you drive? Probably not. Will the new "law" have unintended consequences? They all do.
"Laws" can never replace personal responsibility. If someone causes harm, they need to pay restitution. Until then, mind your own business. And, as always, pay attention to the other drivers- because you can NEVER count on them paying attention to you, texting or not. "Laws" are just an excuse to abdicate your own responsibility and hand it over to someone else.
Friday, January 22, 2010
A 'threat'? Hardly
A 'threat'? Hardly
Since when is it a "threat" to tell a known aggressor "if you attack me, I will fight back"?
David Codrea got accused of making that sort of "threat" recently, and I have been the target of the same accusation several times in the past. It seems some people's definitions have gotten a bit topsy-turvy.
It serves the forces of coercion very well to threaten to "tax" me, and then when I say "no, if you try I will defend myself" to start whining that I have made a threat. Sorry, but the thief who announces his intention to rob me has made the threat. If he follows through he has set a series of events in motion, and he may not be pleased with the end results.
The same goes for those who announce their intention to violate any of my rights (for example, those who attempt to take my property against my will by the above-mentioned "taxation" and will threaten to kidnap me if I don't comply, or those who try to change rights into privileges). It matters not if the one making the threats is the one thinking up the "law" or the one whose "job" it is to enforce that "law". A threat is a threat, and an attack is an attack. The target of the attack has no obligation to allow the attack to succeed, no matter what the "law" may be. And stating that aggression will be met with resistance or defensive force is not a "threat".
Since when is it a "threat" to tell a known aggressor "if you attack me, I will fight back"?
David Codrea got accused of making that sort of "threat" recently, and I have been the target of the same accusation several times in the past. It seems some people's definitions have gotten a bit topsy-turvy.
It serves the forces of coercion very well to threaten to "tax" me, and then when I say "no, if you try I will defend myself" to start whining that I have made a threat. Sorry, but the thief who announces his intention to rob me has made the threat. If he follows through he has set a series of events in motion, and he may not be pleased with the end results.
The same goes for those who announce their intention to violate any of my rights (for example, those who attempt to take my property against my will by the above-mentioned "taxation" and will threaten to kidnap me if I don't comply, or those who try to change rights into privileges). It matters not if the one making the threats is the one thinking up the "law" or the one whose "job" it is to enforce that "law". A threat is a threat, and an attack is an attack. The target of the attack has no obligation to allow the attack to succeed, no matter what the "law" may be. And stating that aggression will be met with resistance or defensive force is not a "threat".
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Home invasion victim survives one; can he survive the second?
Home invasion victim survives one; can he survive the second?
Provisional good news! Someone tried to break into a home and consequences caught up with him. All home invasions should end this way; with the invader dead. In a free society, people like the dead man might decide to get honest work. Or be darwinized out of the gene-pool. Of course, this event may still cause problems for the home's residents if the "law" has its way. No good deed goes unpunished in Governmentland.
Why is the case being sent to the DA? Must make sure there isn't something, anything, that the defender can be charged with before they let him go about his life. Did the LEOs unethically confiscate his gun, his protection, as "evidence" until they can decide if he should have died quietly instead of adding to their workload? What if someone else decides to break into this same home in the meantime? Will the "law" accept responsibility?
Of course, we all know why the enforcers want a search warrant for the home that was being invaded: they are hoping to find "drugs" or some other "reason" the aggressor was trying so desperately to get inside. This is just another example of the stupidity of the War on (some) Drugs. Government causes the theft and violence problem by artificially limiting supply through prohibition, then uses the logical results of prohibition to net even more innocent people.
This is why the policy of "shoot, shovel, and shut up" is still the best, and why his neighbors did him no favor by calling the LEOs. Good luck to the defender, good riddance to the parasite, and "Good grief" to the "law".
Provisional good news! Someone tried to break into a home and consequences caught up with him. All home invasions should end this way; with the invader dead. In a free society, people like the dead man might decide to get honest work. Or be darwinized out of the gene-pool. Of course, this event may still cause problems for the home's residents if the "law" has its way. No good deed goes unpunished in Governmentland.
Why is the case being sent to the DA? Must make sure there isn't something, anything, that the defender can be charged with before they let him go about his life. Did the LEOs unethically confiscate his gun, his protection, as "evidence" until they can decide if he should have died quietly instead of adding to their workload? What if someone else decides to break into this same home in the meantime? Will the "law" accept responsibility?
Of course, we all know why the enforcers want a search warrant for the home that was being invaded: they are hoping to find "drugs" or some other "reason" the aggressor was trying so desperately to get inside. This is just another example of the stupidity of the War on (some) Drugs. Government causes the theft and violence problem by artificially limiting supply through prohibition, then uses the logical results of prohibition to net even more innocent people.
This is why the policy of "shoot, shovel, and shut up" is still the best, and why his neighbors did him no favor by calling the LEOs. Good luck to the defender, good riddance to the parasite, and "Good grief" to the "law".
"Arrest"- the definition
"Arrest" is the euphemism for a kidnapping committed by government employees while they are "on the clock".
Too many cats? Says who?
Too many cats? Says who?
Ridiculous! That was my first thought when I heard about the dozens of cats taken from a local home. And I don't mean it was necessarily ridiculous to have "too many" cats.
Should a person have 50 or 100 cats in their house? It is not up to me or the government to decide. Like it or not, domestic animals are property. You can generally tell how good a person is by how they treat their animals. If I know of someone who abuses animals I will probably not trust him with people, either, and would choose to exercise my right of association.
Sometimes, as seems to be the case in this instance, a person finds themselves in a situation not of their making (his recently deceased wife was the cat collector). Even the misnamed "public safety" (gag!) spokesman/goon acknowledged that the man cared about the cats and meant no harm. No force was initiated and no theft/fraud was committed. This means he did no wrong.
The city claims it "can not allow" that many cats to live in a house. Really? It is none of the city's business. Period. "Animal control" and the LEOs are, once again, the aggressors. Why are they not being held accountable? Because too many people don't care as much about rights being violated as they do about cats and cops.
Now, the man is being charged with "crimes" (of course!). Government can't leave anything alone if it sees an opportunity to turn someone else into a "criminal" and steal more property and money. And, in this case, destroy a man's home in the process.
In a free society, this man would probably be helped, not violated by coercive thugs. He would have no reason to fear asking for help, since no one could "legally" attack him as they did in the police state which surrounds us today. He could be assisted in finding homes for the cats he did not wish to keep. His home could be cleaned by volunteers if he is unable to do it for himself and if he wants the help. If he preferred to stay in his house surrounded by dying cats and filth, that, too would be his business alone, whether anyone liked it or not. Only if his house became a credible threat to the health or property of others (who were not able to contain the threat without using defensive force) could they take defensive actions themselves; not by using thugs hired with stolen money.
Ridiculous! That was my first thought when I heard about the dozens of cats taken from a local home. And I don't mean it was necessarily ridiculous to have "too many" cats.
Should a person have 50 or 100 cats in their house? It is not up to me or the government to decide. Like it or not, domestic animals are property. You can generally tell how good a person is by how they treat their animals. If I know of someone who abuses animals I will probably not trust him with people, either, and would choose to exercise my right of association.
Sometimes, as seems to be the case in this instance, a person finds themselves in a situation not of their making (his recently deceased wife was the cat collector). Even the misnamed "public safety" (gag!) spokesman/goon acknowledged that the man cared about the cats and meant no harm. No force was initiated and no theft/fraud was committed. This means he did no wrong.
The city claims it "can not allow" that many cats to live in a house. Really? It is none of the city's business. Period. "Animal control" and the LEOs are, once again, the aggressors. Why are they not being held accountable? Because too many people don't care as much about rights being violated as they do about cats and cops.
Now, the man is being charged with "crimes" (of course!). Government can't leave anything alone if it sees an opportunity to turn someone else into a "criminal" and steal more property and money. And, in this case, destroy a man's home in the process.
In a free society, this man would probably be helped, not violated by coercive thugs. He would have no reason to fear asking for help, since no one could "legally" attack him as they did in the police state which surrounds us today. He could be assisted in finding homes for the cats he did not wish to keep. His home could be cleaned by volunteers if he is unable to do it for himself and if he wants the help. If he preferred to stay in his house surrounded by dying cats and filth, that, too would be his business alone, whether anyone liked it or not. Only if his house became a credible threat to the health or property of others (who were not able to contain the threat without using defensive force) could they take defensive actions themselves; not by using thugs hired with stolen money.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Death gives birth to life, but massacres are not baby showers
Death gives birth to life, but massacres are not baby showers
From death comes life. And perhaps, sometimes, by accident, from government actions could come good things. That isn't an endorsement of government any more than love of life is a good justification to go around killing indiscriminately. None of us, individually or collectively, is wise enough to exercise that power and claim we are doing it for the good of life.
Someone posted, on one of my rather old columns, the same old tired (and incorrect) just-so tale about how the government invented the internet that we liberty-lovers now so mean-spiritedly use to speak out against the government.
Even if this were correct, so what? Guns that were invented by Hitler's military contractors can now be used for fun and for self-defense. This doesn't mean we are "lucky" that Hitler came to power, or that we owe him anything for "giving us" these guns.
Many types of powerful poison have medicinal uses. Should you run right out and drink or inject yourself with poison as soon as you discover that fact? Not unless you are an authoritarian.
The commenter then compounds his error by claiming that the same government that blessed us with the invention of the internet guarantees our freedom of speech. Seriously? Who else besides government has been a credible threat to freedom of speech- or any other rights for that matter- in recent history?
I have never had any neighbor try to kidnap, kill, or "fine" me for exercising any of my rights. Never has an independent migrant- excuse me- an "illegal immigrant" tried to infringe on any of my rights. I have never had any person from any of the countries the US government is so busy attacking, invading, and occupying try to stop me from exercising even one of my rights. On the other hand I have never had even one agent of the government take any action other than try to prevent me from experiencing liberty in some meaningful way.
The only threat to my individual liberty, besides perhaps myself, is, and always has been, the government that the commenter claims is "guaranteeing" my freedoms. And he calls libertarians the "dumb bells"!
From death comes life. And perhaps, sometimes, by accident, from government actions could come good things. That isn't an endorsement of government any more than love of life is a good justification to go around killing indiscriminately. None of us, individually or collectively, is wise enough to exercise that power and claim we are doing it for the good of life.
Someone posted, on one of my rather old columns, the same old tired (and incorrect) just-so tale about how the government invented the internet that we liberty-lovers now so mean-spiritedly use to speak out against the government.
Even if this were correct, so what? Guns that were invented by Hitler's military contractors can now be used for fun and for self-defense. This doesn't mean we are "lucky" that Hitler came to power, or that we owe him anything for "giving us" these guns.
Many types of powerful poison have medicinal uses. Should you run right out and drink or inject yourself with poison as soon as you discover that fact? Not unless you are an authoritarian.
The commenter then compounds his error by claiming that the same government that blessed us with the invention of the internet guarantees our freedom of speech. Seriously? Who else besides government has been a credible threat to freedom of speech- or any other rights for that matter- in recent history?
I have never had any neighbor try to kidnap, kill, or "fine" me for exercising any of my rights. Never has an independent migrant- excuse me- an "illegal immigrant" tried to infringe on any of my rights. I have never had any person from any of the countries the US government is so busy attacking, invading, and occupying try to stop me from exercising even one of my rights. On the other hand I have never had even one agent of the government take any action other than try to prevent me from experiencing liberty in some meaningful way.
The only threat to my individual liberty, besides perhaps myself, is, and always has been, the government that the commenter claims is "guaranteeing" my freedoms. And he calls libertarians the "dumb bells"!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Computers die too
I had a computer scare tonight. My computer started making awful sounds and kept re-starting, but never going to my sign-in screen. Just as suddenly as it started doing that, it repaired itself and is seeming to work fine right now. Will it last?
Chances are I will not be able to afford another computer anytime soon if this one dies. Maybe if that happens I will take it as a sign that my years of embracing technology and writing about liberty have come to an abrupt end and it is time to go back to my stone tools and leather full time. There are worse things.
So, if I suddenly disappear from the online world, you will know what probably happened.
Chances are I will not be able to afford another computer anytime soon if this one dies. Maybe if that happens I will take it as a sign that my years of embracing technology and writing about liberty have come to an abrupt end and it is time to go back to my stone tools and leather full time. There are worse things.
So, if I suddenly disappear from the online world, you will know what probably happened.
Stay armed. Stay alert. Be aware.
Stay armed. Stay alert. Be aware.
The latest JPFO alert reminded me of something I have thought many times, but have failed to properly express before it was too late in the past. This time I'm saying it now, hoping that you will take it to heart and not forget.
The upcoming Supreme Court case on the incorporation of the Second Amendment, McDonald vs. The City of Chicago, means that gun owners need to be especially vigilant for the next several months. Why? Because you can almost bet that the anti-gun forces are planning to stage another massacre with one of their pre-programmed "manchurian shooter" "sleepers" before the ruling.
Gun owners need to be ready, and able, to either prevent this entirely or stop it in its tracks if it does begin. The massacre will almost assuredly occur in a "gun free zone" and that means if it is to be stopped it will have to be stopped by a good person who violates that counterfeit "law". In the meantime you can not afford to go anywhere unarmed.
No matter the ruling, your rights will remain the same, since the Second Amendment doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a government employee, and then it only forbids them to enact or enforce gun "laws" of any sort. However, your liberty will be damaged by any ruling other than full incorporation. I realize that an anti-incorporation ruling might be the trigger, pun intended, to set off the firestorm that finally brings down Leviathan, but I am in favor of peaceful solutions if at all possible. Let the state wither and die rather than commit a massive murder/suicide. And this is possibly the last opportunity for that peaceful solution.
Stay armed. Stay alert. Be aware. Give the Supreme Court no excuses and no wiggle-room. Then, whatever happens, you can know you did your part and the blood is not on your hands.
The latest JPFO alert reminded me of something I have thought many times, but have failed to properly express before it was too late in the past. This time I'm saying it now, hoping that you will take it to heart and not forget.
The upcoming Supreme Court case on the incorporation of the Second Amendment, McDonald vs. The City of Chicago, means that gun owners need to be especially vigilant for the next several months. Why? Because you can almost bet that the anti-gun forces are planning to stage another massacre with one of their pre-programmed "manchurian shooter" "sleepers" before the ruling.
Gun owners need to be ready, and able, to either prevent this entirely or stop it in its tracks if it does begin. The massacre will almost assuredly occur in a "gun free zone" and that means if it is to be stopped it will have to be stopped by a good person who violates that counterfeit "law". In the meantime you can not afford to go anywhere unarmed.
No matter the ruling, your rights will remain the same, since the Second Amendment doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a government employee, and then it only forbids them to enact or enforce gun "laws" of any sort. However, your liberty will be damaged by any ruling other than full incorporation. I realize that an anti-incorporation ruling might be the trigger, pun intended, to set off the firestorm that finally brings down Leviathan, but I am in favor of peaceful solutions if at all possible. Let the state wither and die rather than commit a massive murder/suicide. And this is possibly the last opportunity for that peaceful solution.
Stay armed. Stay alert. Be aware. Give the Supreme Court no excuses and no wiggle-room. Then, whatever happens, you can know you did your part and the blood is not on your hands.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Theater shooting teaches lessons
Theater shooting teaches lessons
The Albuquerque theater negligent discharge incident has some very instructive lessons for those of us rational enough to pick them out.
This case, making the unfounded assumption that the media reports are correct, concerns a man who had his revolver slip out of his pocket during a movie, hit the floor and discharge, striking a woman in the foot. Of course, this has the hoplophobes wriggling with scarcely-concealed glee. They see it as an opportunity to further criminalize guns and gun owners. Even the police are calling the shooting "accidental" yet are charging the man in connection with the shooting. "Accidents" happen and should never be the basis for criminal charges. Bad government. No biscuit!
No "laws", new or otherwise, are necessary for dealing with events such as this.
The theater had no policy prohibiting the carrying of weapons as far as I can tell, nor should they- unless they don't care about the true safety of their customers. So, he was not "trespassing" or violating the stated wishes of the property owner as long as he paid for his ticket. No wrong was done there.
"Laws" prohibiting or regulating the carrying of weaponry, concealed or openly, are evil. They are also completely and utterly unconstitutional, if that concerns you. It is not the "possession" of anything, ever, that is wrong, but only your actions with that object. Once again, no wrong on the man's part.
You have a responsibility to carry your weapons in a secure manner. Obviously, he was not doing so. I have been guilty of this a time or two myself. This is irresponsible and has consequences. "Strike one" against him.
So, let's look at the harm he caused. If you cause harm you are responsible. Restitution is the proper remedy, not "criminal charges" like those the authoritards are filing. (Because they smell blood, the district attorney's office decided, against it's own normal policy, to get involved. This is politically motivated hogwash driven by emotionalism rather than reason. Why does that not surprise me?) The gun owner is responsible for the injured person's medical bills which result from her injury, whether he likes that fact or not. So, when he realized he had harmed someone, he lied. This is understandable in light of the authoritarian police-state in which we find ourselves, where anytime there is an accident, someone must be punished to satisfy Master, but it is still wrong. Strike two.
If this were a free society, and the same event had happened, the man would probably have not been afraid to own up to his grave mistake. He would have had no overwhelming reason to lie or try to run from his responsibility. And there would have been no "official" involvement; only arbitration if needed.
Also note- The first review of my book Indy-Pindy has been published.
The Albuquerque theater negligent discharge incident has some very instructive lessons for those of us rational enough to pick them out.
This case, making the unfounded assumption that the media reports are correct, concerns a man who had his revolver slip out of his pocket during a movie, hit the floor and discharge, striking a woman in the foot. Of course, this has the hoplophobes wriggling with scarcely-concealed glee. They see it as an opportunity to further criminalize guns and gun owners. Even the police are calling the shooting "accidental" yet are charging the man in connection with the shooting. "Accidents" happen and should never be the basis for criminal charges. Bad government. No biscuit!
No "laws", new or otherwise, are necessary for dealing with events such as this.
The theater had no policy prohibiting the carrying of weapons as far as I can tell, nor should they- unless they don't care about the true safety of their customers. So, he was not "trespassing" or violating the stated wishes of the property owner as long as he paid for his ticket. No wrong was done there.
"Laws" prohibiting or regulating the carrying of weaponry, concealed or openly, are evil. They are also completely and utterly unconstitutional, if that concerns you. It is not the "possession" of anything, ever, that is wrong, but only your actions with that object. Once again, no wrong on the man's part.
You have a responsibility to carry your weapons in a secure manner. Obviously, he was not doing so. I have been guilty of this a time or two myself. This is irresponsible and has consequences. "Strike one" against him.
So, let's look at the harm he caused. If you cause harm you are responsible. Restitution is the proper remedy, not "criminal charges" like those the authoritards are filing. (Because they smell blood, the district attorney's office decided, against it's own normal policy, to get involved. This is politically motivated hogwash driven by emotionalism rather than reason. Why does that not surprise me?) The gun owner is responsible for the injured person's medical bills which result from her injury, whether he likes that fact or not. So, when he realized he had harmed someone, he lied. This is understandable in light of the authoritarian police-state in which we find ourselves, where anytime there is an accident, someone must be punished to satisfy Master, but it is still wrong. Strike two.
If this were a free society, and the same event had happened, the man would probably have not been afraid to own up to his grave mistake. He would have had no overwhelming reason to lie or try to run from his responsibility. And there would have been no "official" involvement; only arbitration if needed.
Also note- The first review of my book Indy-Pindy has been published.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Dealing with aggressors
Dealing with aggressors
Aggressors can be found anywhere and everywhere. There are not very many of them compared to the rest of us, especially if you only count the aggressors who get their own hands dirty rather than the average, cowardly, ones who send the hired goons of government to commit their aggression for them. Most of those "send government" aggressors will hide in terror when they can't send hired thugs in their place. However, the small percentage of aggressors among us wreak a lot of havoc when we believe we are powerless to actually do something to stop them. We should get over that delusion.
Most freelance aggressors only seem dangerous when protected by "laws" that penalize self-defense (such as those thugs operating on the ruined streets of Haiti now). Only government- through its twisted legacy of "law and order" and disarmament- gives those thugs a safe environment in which to work. Hypothetically, if a thief is caught in your home and you kill him in the act, who would ever come knocking on your door to ask you if you had seen him? Does he have any connection to you in any way? Did he leave a sticky-note telling his family he would be at your address, just in case he went missing? It's doubtful. Don't fear or hesitate to deal with this type.
The rest of the aggressors are a more difficult case. Only when gathered into a gigantic organization do aggressors pose any (possibly) insurmountable threat. The government is bigger, more aggressive, and vastly more dangerous than any "street gang" of freelance thugs who victimize the denizens. Plus, a large percentage of the population is brainwashed into not seeing them as aggressors at all.
When an aggressor who works for the government is justifiably struck down by his intended victim, the rest of his organization, his gang of government, makes certain to severely punish the individual who was only defending himself from that aggression as an example to the rest of us. And the gang works tirelessly with lies and half truths to manipulate public opinion to take sides with them. Cory Maye is a prime, ongoing, example of this injustice.
At this time in history, the number of aggressors in the gang of the state seems endless when you are on the receiving end of their attention. They depend on this "strength in numbers" illusion to keep people intimidated enough that few openly resist, and even fewer fight back, and those who do are usually either caged or murdered. Only the resultant fear keeps people submitting to the "legalized" theft and coercion that is the founding principle of every government that has ever existed. That may not always be the case. In fact, by reading between the lines of the narrative, I'm sure that dog-eared chapter of The Story of Civilization is wrapping up. Remember, we outnumber them.
Aggressors can be found anywhere and everywhere. There are not very many of them compared to the rest of us, especially if you only count the aggressors who get their own hands dirty rather than the average, cowardly, ones who send the hired goons of government to commit their aggression for them. Most of those "send government" aggressors will hide in terror when they can't send hired thugs in their place. However, the small percentage of aggressors among us wreak a lot of havoc when we believe we are powerless to actually do something to stop them. We should get over that delusion.
Most freelance aggressors only seem dangerous when protected by "laws" that penalize self-defense (such as those thugs operating on the ruined streets of Haiti now). Only government- through its twisted legacy of "law and order" and disarmament- gives those thugs a safe environment in which to work. Hypothetically, if a thief is caught in your home and you kill him in the act, who would ever come knocking on your door to ask you if you had seen him? Does he have any connection to you in any way? Did he leave a sticky-note telling his family he would be at your address, just in case he went missing? It's doubtful. Don't fear or hesitate to deal with this type.
The rest of the aggressors are a more difficult case. Only when gathered into a gigantic organization do aggressors pose any (possibly) insurmountable threat. The government is bigger, more aggressive, and vastly more dangerous than any "street gang" of freelance thugs who victimize the denizens. Plus, a large percentage of the population is brainwashed into not seeing them as aggressors at all.
When an aggressor who works for the government is justifiably struck down by his intended victim, the rest of his organization, his gang of government, makes certain to severely punish the individual who was only defending himself from that aggression as an example to the rest of us. And the gang works tirelessly with lies and half truths to manipulate public opinion to take sides with them. Cory Maye is a prime, ongoing, example of this injustice.
At this time in history, the number of aggressors in the gang of the state seems endless when you are on the receiving end of their attention. They depend on this "strength in numbers" illusion to keep people intimidated enough that few openly resist, and even fewer fight back, and those who do are usually either caged or murdered. Only the resultant fear keeps people submitting to the "legalized" theft and coercion that is the founding principle of every government that has ever existed. That may not always be the case. In fact, by reading between the lines of the narrative, I'm sure that dog-eared chapter of The Story of Civilization is wrapping up. Remember, we outnumber them.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Oath Keepers? I'm still waiting
Oath Keepers? I'm still waiting
I have been critical of Oath Keepers in the past, and my concerns have not changed. However, judging by some comments on The War on Guns, I think some people are focused on the wrong things.
If the Oath Keepers actually do what they are swearing an oath to do- obey the Constitution by refusing to obey unconstitutional orders- then I will applaud them. I am simply encouraging them to actually keep the oath they have sworn and reaffirmed as part of Oath Keepers. I am also convinced that Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, is an honorable man without a secret agenda and with no desire to force anyone to do anything. This movement is all about refusing to force compliance with unconstitutional "laws". That's all.
No, I am not a fan of the Constitution, although I do believe a Constitutional government would be better than the travesty that attempts to rule us now. I have to wonder, though, if the individual Oath Keepers really understand what "unconstitutional" means. Don't rely on the black-robed furniture abusers of the Supreme Court to tell you what the Constitution means. They are wrong more often than they are right, and it was never their job to tell you and me what the Constitution means. That authority rests in you and me alone. They stole that "authority" for themselves and have gotten away with it so far.
"Unconstitutional" does not mean the Constitution clearly says that the action in question is forbidden, but that the Constitution does NOT say, explicitly, that the action in question is an authorized power of the government. Of course, where the Constitution and coercion, theft, and fraud join purposes (which they often do), the Constitution is in the wrong.
My concern remains: how many Oath Keepers are still doing unconstitutional things as a part of their "job"? How many LEOs who have taken the oath are still enforcing traffic "laws", drug "laws", or gun "laws"? Where are those "laws" explicitly authorized in the Constitution? How many are helping "arrest" (kidnap) people for violating tax "laws" or are helping other agents of the state steal the houses and other property of these people? Doesn't "right and wrong" mean more than "Constitutional"? How many military Oath Keepers are still allowing the government to send them around the globe to occupy other people's territory, and then killing those who fight back?
I don't believe an honest Oath Keeper could remain employed if they actually honored the oath. In fact, I doubt an honest Oath Keeper would stay out of prison for long.
I want to see Oath Keepers make a difference. I will not be shocked if they don't. It is amazing what a person can justify to themselves when a paycheck is on the line, or when nationalistic brainwashing has worked its magic.
I have been critical of Oath Keepers in the past, and my concerns have not changed. However, judging by some comments on The War on Guns, I think some people are focused on the wrong things.
If the Oath Keepers actually do what they are swearing an oath to do- obey the Constitution by refusing to obey unconstitutional orders- then I will applaud them. I am simply encouraging them to actually keep the oath they have sworn and reaffirmed as part of Oath Keepers. I am also convinced that Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, is an honorable man without a secret agenda and with no desire to force anyone to do anything. This movement is all about refusing to force compliance with unconstitutional "laws". That's all.
No, I am not a fan of the Constitution, although I do believe a Constitutional government would be better than the travesty that attempts to rule us now. I have to wonder, though, if the individual Oath Keepers really understand what "unconstitutional" means. Don't rely on the black-robed furniture abusers of the Supreme Court to tell you what the Constitution means. They are wrong more often than they are right, and it was never their job to tell you and me what the Constitution means. That authority rests in you and me alone. They stole that "authority" for themselves and have gotten away with it so far.
"Unconstitutional" does not mean the Constitution clearly says that the action in question is forbidden, but that the Constitution does NOT say, explicitly, that the action in question is an authorized power of the government. Of course, where the Constitution and coercion, theft, and fraud join purposes (which they often do), the Constitution is in the wrong.
My concern remains: how many Oath Keepers are still doing unconstitutional things as a part of their "job"? How many LEOs who have taken the oath are still enforcing traffic "laws", drug "laws", or gun "laws"? Where are those "laws" explicitly authorized in the Constitution? How many are helping "arrest" (kidnap) people for violating tax "laws" or are helping other agents of the state steal the houses and other property of these people? Doesn't "right and wrong" mean more than "Constitutional"? How many military Oath Keepers are still allowing the government to send them around the globe to occupy other people's territory, and then killing those who fight back?
I don't believe an honest Oath Keeper could remain employed if they actually honored the oath. In fact, I doubt an honest Oath Keeper would stay out of prison for long.
I want to see Oath Keepers make a difference. I will not be shocked if they don't. It is amazing what a person can justify to themselves when a paycheck is on the line, or when nationalistic brainwashing has worked its magic.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Political 'news': repetitious and unnecessary
Political 'news': repetitious and unnecessary
"The news" is not normally very interesting to me, except in the event of a big disaster. "Political news" is what I'm specifically talking about. I don't really care much about what such-and-such a politician is doing. It is safe to assume he is committing (or plotting and conspiring to commit) an act of incredible evil. Why worry yourself about the exact details? Especially when I refuse to take another single step back anyway.
You may claim that you need to know precisely what the vermin in "public office" are doing to us, but I have noticed that it is the same old story over and over. The thugs rotate, and the newest assaults on liberty get a new euphemistic name, but the political "news" remains virtually unchanged from year to year and decade to decade.
If you enjoy following the news, I encourage you to have fun with your hobby. I only think some people don't understand the reasons why others don't share their passion.
Assume the worst of politicians and their weapon of choice, "laws"- enforced by thugs with guns paid for by the very people they are assaulting and threatening, and you will rarely be wrong. I'm not saying you shouldn't pay attention at all, I'm just thinking it is not healthy to obsess too much. You have enough to think about in living your own life and taking care of your own business. You do that and the rest will take care of itself.
***********************************************
Tangentially- I made the mistake yesterday of watching a few minutes of cable news coverage of the Haiti earthquake, only to be disgusted when the statist drones on screen became concerned over how the Haitian government would fare after this disaster. Among all the concerns that are real- all the death, injury, pain, loss of loved ones and homes and businesses- these "empathetic" reporters were concerned that the government might be hurt by this.
"The news" is not normally very interesting to me, except in the event of a big disaster. "Political news" is what I'm specifically talking about. I don't really care much about what such-and-such a politician is doing. It is safe to assume he is committing (or plotting and conspiring to commit) an act of incredible evil. Why worry yourself about the exact details? Especially when I refuse to take another single step back anyway.
You may claim that you need to know precisely what the vermin in "public office" are doing to us, but I have noticed that it is the same old story over and over. The thugs rotate, and the newest assaults on liberty get a new euphemistic name, but the political "news" remains virtually unchanged from year to year and decade to decade.
If you enjoy following the news, I encourage you to have fun with your hobby. I only think some people don't understand the reasons why others don't share their passion.
Assume the worst of politicians and their weapon of choice, "laws"- enforced by thugs with guns paid for by the very people they are assaulting and threatening, and you will rarely be wrong. I'm not saying you shouldn't pay attention at all, I'm just thinking it is not healthy to obsess too much. You have enough to think about in living your own life and taking care of your own business. You do that and the rest will take care of itself.
***********************************************
Tangentially- I made the mistake yesterday of watching a few minutes of cable news coverage of the Haiti earthquake, only to be disgusted when the statist drones on screen became concerned over how the Haitian government would fare after this disaster. Among all the concerns that are real- all the death, injury, pain, loss of loved ones and homes and businesses- these "empathetic" reporters were concerned that the government might be hurt by this.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
'Losing your rights' part 2
The debate in the comments of a previous column, over whether rights can be lost or not, made me realize something which I think is vital. Whichever side if the debate you find yourself on I ask you: which premise would make for a more ethical, livable, society of maximum liberty?
I firmly believe that, whether you truly think rights are inherent in being a living human being or whether you think they can be forfeited by engaging in aggression, if you act as though rights can never be lost your society will be better for it.
One example that comes to mind will be a real issue after the fall of government. There may be a strong temptation to zealously pursue and punish, or even execute, everyone who has added to the death and destruction of the previous society by working with, or for, government. After all, "government" can do nothing without individual human beings initiating force and committing theft and fraud. Do these individual aggressors deserve death? In a great majority of cases, yes. You could say that by their acts of aggression they have given up their right to liberty or life. And, if rights can be lost, you would be right.
However I think it would be better to wipe the slate clean and only kill them in self-defense if they return to their old government-like ways in the new, free, society. What kind of society would we have after the fall of the state if we spent the next several decades trying to ferret out everyone who had been a part of government and give them what they deserve? I know I wouldn't want to live in that world.
I firmly believe that, whether you truly think rights are inherent in being a living human being or whether you think they can be forfeited by engaging in aggression, if you act as though rights can never be lost your society will be better for it.
One example that comes to mind will be a real issue after the fall of government. There may be a strong temptation to zealously pursue and punish, or even execute, everyone who has added to the death and destruction of the previous society by working with, or for, government. After all, "government" can do nothing without individual human beings initiating force and committing theft and fraud. Do these individual aggressors deserve death? In a great majority of cases, yes. You could say that by their acts of aggression they have given up their right to liberty or life. And, if rights can be lost, you would be right.
However I think it would be better to wipe the slate clean and only kill them in self-defense if they return to their old government-like ways in the new, free, society. What kind of society would we have after the fall of the state if we spent the next several decades trying to ferret out everyone who had been a part of government and give them what they deserve? I know I wouldn't want to live in that world.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The problem is aggression, not government
The problem is aggression, not government
A recent comment on this column, a column that had nothing to do with government, makes me think that some people don't see that evil is evil, whether it is committed by government or by freelance thugs.
A commenter using the name "oddtime" said
To which I replied
I'm not sure about the local "laws" concerning restraining orders, nor do I care, but I do know that in some other places you must have some intimate connection to a person to get "protected" by those flimsy pieces of paper, and that is, thankfully, not the case in this instance. The "advice" from "oddtime" also ignores the fact that a restraining order does nothing to protect anyone. I had a very dear friend who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend while she had a restraining order against him. It was apparently the "last straw" that made him snap. Yes, "oddtime", she was "Done!" alright. I am better off taking care of the problem myself, as would anyone else be. I am not a victim, nor will I beg anyone to turn me into one.
Coercion, aggression, and theft are the issues. The only reason government actions are targeted as much as they are by those who love and understand liberty is that the state is the focus of these evil forces. Using coercion, aggression, and theft wielded on your behalf by the biggest gang of thugs to deal with a threatening individual is simply wrong and pathetic.
You and I can deal with individual aggressors (like the one mentioned in the previous column) by ourselves, unless we refuse to act as self-responsible humans. Evil acts are evil due to their nature, not because of who is doing them. Don't fall in to the trap of thinking that only government does bad things. Government is bad because of the things it does, not because it is "government".
A new blog: Our friend "Black Flag" has a new blog out there that I just became aware of. Visit Freedom Flies a Black Flag soon, and often, for some great wisdom!
And don't forget to check out my books Indy-Pindy and Kent's Liberty Primer
A recent comment on this column, a column that had nothing to do with government, makes me think that some people don't see that evil is evil, whether it is committed by government or by freelance thugs.
A commenter using the name "oddtime" said
I'm failing to follow you in this. Are you implying the government made this
person follow you? The person was breaking laws, trespassing, and assault. These
laws are enforces (sic) by the government. Go to the government you dislike and
get a restraining order. Done!
To which I replied
Who said anything about government? Government is not the only force for evil
out there. There are freelance ones, too. Like psycho, aggressive individuals. I
solved the problem without depending on another evil: government. There is no
situation so bad it can't be made worse by adding government to the mix. Why
would any "adult" have someone else do their job for them, especially someone
else financed by theft? I don't need government and neither do you.
I'm not sure about the local "laws" concerning restraining orders, nor do I care, but I do know that in some other places you must have some intimate connection to a person to get "protected" by those flimsy pieces of paper, and that is, thankfully, not the case in this instance. The "advice" from "oddtime" also ignores the fact that a restraining order does nothing to protect anyone. I had a very dear friend who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend while she had a restraining order against him. It was apparently the "last straw" that made him snap. Yes, "oddtime", she was "Done!" alright. I am better off taking care of the problem myself, as would anyone else be. I am not a victim, nor will I beg anyone to turn me into one.
Coercion, aggression, and theft are the issues. The only reason government actions are targeted as much as they are by those who love and understand liberty is that the state is the focus of these evil forces. Using coercion, aggression, and theft wielded on your behalf by the biggest gang of thugs to deal with a threatening individual is simply wrong and pathetic.
You and I can deal with individual aggressors (like the one mentioned in the previous column) by ourselves, unless we refuse to act as self-responsible humans. Evil acts are evil due to their nature, not because of who is doing them. Don't fall in to the trap of thinking that only government does bad things. Government is bad because of the things it does, not because it is "government".
A new blog: Our friend "Black Flag" has a new blog out there that I just became aware of. Visit Freedom Flies a Black Flag soon, and often, for some great wisdom!
And don't forget to check out my books Indy-Pindy and Kent's Liberty Primer
Monday, January 11, 2010
'Losing your rights'
Frequently, when discussing "crime", we hear it stated that once a person has committed certain acts, he has "lost his rights" for a certain amount of time. This inconsistency has always bothered me, even when I have used the same phrase.
The truth is that due to the nature of rights, rights can not ever be "lost"; not under any circumstances.
They can, however, be violated in certain circumstances without the violator necessarily becoming a bad guy. An example would be when you shoot a person who is attacking or robbing you and therefore violate his "right to life". In the case of a person initiating force, you have the right to defend yourself. His poor choice set events in motion and he may not like the outcome. He did not lose his rights, but in defending your own rights you justifiably violated his rights and no one in an ethical society would ever punish you for your act.
But rights can never be legitimately violated after the fact by government (or anyone else) under any pretext. This is the foundation of "punishment"- violating a person's rights based upon (often highly disputable) past events rather than the events of the current moment.
Putting the aggressor/thief in prison or taking away his means of self-defense does not restore his victim to their former condition; it only satisfies a lust for retribution and for causing pain. If a person is dangerous enough that he needs to be caged, then he is dangerous enough that he should be killed by his next intended victim or a rescuer. Don't protect him from the consequences of his actions.
Restitution should be the goal for those acts that self-defense failed to stop. Restitution is the paying off of a debt that was incurred by some act of coercion or theft. This does not violate the rights of the debtor since he voluntarily took on this debt by his actions. He may have thought he would never have to pay the debt, but it was still his choice to take it on.
The individual rights of the lowest, most dastardly member of society always trump the authority of any agent of government. Once people begin to truly understand this, civilization can once again begin to advance. Until then, we must find ways to deal with the stagnation that statism and other forms of authoritarianism cause. The authoritarians will not like our ways of dealing with (and working around) them.
Update: Please read 'Losing your rights' part 2
.
The truth is that due to the nature of rights, rights can not ever be "lost"; not under any circumstances.
They can, however, be violated in certain circumstances without the violator necessarily becoming a bad guy. An example would be when you shoot a person who is attacking or robbing you and therefore violate his "right to life". In the case of a person initiating force, you have the right to defend yourself. His poor choice set events in motion and he may not like the outcome. He did not lose his rights, but in defending your own rights you justifiably violated his rights and no one in an ethical society would ever punish you for your act.
But rights can never be legitimately violated after the fact by government (or anyone else) under any pretext. This is the foundation of "punishment"- violating a person's rights based upon (often highly disputable) past events rather than the events of the current moment.
Putting the aggressor/thief in prison or taking away his means of self-defense does not restore his victim to their former condition; it only satisfies a lust for retribution and for causing pain. If a person is dangerous enough that he needs to be caged, then he is dangerous enough that he should be killed by his next intended victim or a rescuer. Don't protect him from the consequences of his actions.
Restitution should be the goal for those acts that self-defense failed to stop. Restitution is the paying off of a debt that was incurred by some act of coercion or theft. This does not violate the rights of the debtor since he voluntarily took on this debt by his actions. He may have thought he would never have to pay the debt, but it was still his choice to take it on.
The individual rights of the lowest, most dastardly member of society always trump the authority of any agent of government. Once people begin to truly understand this, civilization can once again begin to advance. Until then, we must find ways to deal with the stagnation that statism and other forms of authoritarianism cause. The authoritarians will not like our ways of dealing with (and working around) them.
Update: Please read 'Losing your rights' part 2
.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Shun the scanner cult
Shun the scanner cult
Guess what. If I would be forced to pass through any sort of "security" scanner, from a simple metal detector to a full-blown Pedophile-O-Vision, I will not do business with you. I do not believe in your "security" cult, and I don't trust those who do not trust their customers. I certainly don't have enough self-loathing to do business with those who have open contempt for their customers, or in the case of government, fear and contempt for those they are coercing to associate with them.
I know that the only path to real security is a universally-armed populace, and that anything less only helps those who wish to harm the innocent: in other words these "security" scanners enable government and terrorists and all other murderous rapists (sorry for the redundancy). The bad guys will always find a way around such measures, through official "only one" status, bribes, or just innovative thinking and new weaponry. Always.
If you operate one of those machines for your employer you are working to ensure success for the bad guys and you should stop now if you have any principles that are worth living up to. Yes, it means you will need to find an ethical way to earn money in a governmentally-damaged economy, but sometimes to do the right thing is hard and a little painful. It is still the right thing to do.
Any sort of "security" scanner should be seen as a gigantic warning sign saying "Keep Out!" and you should heed it for your own good. After all, those who own the scanners will not rush to save you when "the system" inevitably fails. Have respect for yourself and walk away from the scanners. Starve those who use them.
Guess what. If I would be forced to pass through any sort of "security" scanner, from a simple metal detector to a full-blown Pedophile-O-Vision, I will not do business with you. I do not believe in your "security" cult, and I don't trust those who do not trust their customers. I certainly don't have enough self-loathing to do business with those who have open contempt for their customers, or in the case of government, fear and contempt for those they are coercing to associate with them.
I know that the only path to real security is a universally-armed populace, and that anything less only helps those who wish to harm the innocent: in other words these "security" scanners enable government and terrorists and all other murderous rapists (sorry for the redundancy). The bad guys will always find a way around such measures, through official "only one" status, bribes, or just innovative thinking and new weaponry. Always.
If you operate one of those machines for your employer you are working to ensure success for the bad guys and you should stop now if you have any principles that are worth living up to. Yes, it means you will need to find an ethical way to earn money in a governmentally-damaged economy, but sometimes to do the right thing is hard and a little painful. It is still the right thing to do.
Any sort of "security" scanner should be seen as a gigantic warning sign saying "Keep Out!" and you should heed it for your own good. After all, those who own the scanners will not rush to save you when "the system" inevitably fails. Have respect for yourself and walk away from the scanners. Starve those who use them.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Rights are inseparably entangled
Rights are inseparably entangled
Each right you have is inseparably entangled and connected with every other right. They form a web that is a unit rather than something that can be subject to "picking and choosing". This is why "liberals" and "conservatives" fail to respect liberty. They each wish to pick out their favorite rights while denying that others, which they don't like, exist at all or pretending they are not important. It doesn't work that way.
Instead, when you try to disparage or violate one right, the entire tapestry of liberty starts to unravel and is weakened. This means that even those rights you wish to have the freedom to exercise fall prey to the destruction that your foolish meddling introduced.
Don't be a part of the problem, but stand up for all rights- including the rights that you dislike, even against those who claim to be on your side. They may not appreciate your principled stand exposing their inconsistency, but that is their shortcoming, not yours.
Liberty is nothing but the freedom to exercise your rights. All of your rights; all of her rights; all of his rights. You don't have to take the freedom, but you have to accept that it exists in order to be consistent and ethical.
Each right you have is inseparably entangled and connected with every other right. They form a web that is a unit rather than something that can be subject to "picking and choosing". This is why "liberals" and "conservatives" fail to respect liberty. They each wish to pick out their favorite rights while denying that others, which they don't like, exist at all or pretending they are not important. It doesn't work that way.
Instead, when you try to disparage or violate one right, the entire tapestry of liberty starts to unravel and is weakened. This means that even those rights you wish to have the freedom to exercise fall prey to the destruction that your foolish meddling introduced.
Don't be a part of the problem, but stand up for all rights- including the rights that you dislike, even against those who claim to be on your side. They may not appreciate your principled stand exposing their inconsistency, but that is their shortcoming, not yours.
Liberty is nothing but the freedom to exercise your rights. All of your rights; all of her rights; all of his rights. You don't have to take the freedom, but you have to accept that it exists in order to be consistent and ethical.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Your 'right of association'
Your 'right of association'
You have an absolute human right to choose who is allowed to be around you, do business with you, or impose themselves on you. This is another of those basic, fundamental human rights that is violated all the time by government.
Everyone has the right to associate with whoever they choose, for any reason- or for no reason at all. If you discriminate for poor reasons you may make a few enemies. If you do not wish to associate with people of certain races, religions, political persuasions, sexual orientation, or whatever else, then no one has the right to demand that you do so. Of course, if you discriminate based upon ignorant prejudices, other people can choose to refuse to deal with you, too. Even if you have good reasons for your choices, some will take issue with your decision. In this, as in every other choice you make, there will be consequences.
This right does not mean you can follow a person around, into their own territory or where they otherwise have a right to be, and then complain that you are being "forced" to be around them.
Just a few days ago I exercised this right by throwing a constant trouble-maker off my property. For about a year she has been causing trouble (including an incident about a week earlier), and I am not even her primary target; she thinks she can get to her target through me, but I do not play the "drama game". Six months ago, when she followed me and my daughter around the park, screaming at me because I wouldn't force her target to alter her behavior, I told her in very clear language to stay completely away from my daughter and me. Yet, she did not heed the "request" and showed up in the company of another person (who was invited) a few days ago. I asserted my right of association and stopped her from trespassing. I was berated and called the bad guy for exercising my right. That is fine.
Government spends a lot of money and propaganda trying to convince you that you have no right of association, and finding ways to punish people who do not buy the lie. Perhaps that is because government wishes to impose itself and its "human tools" into your private life and doesn't want you to realize you have the higher authority to say "no!".
Take note: My newest book, Kent's Liberty Primer is now available. And don't forget my childrens' book- Indy-Pindy: The Liberty Mouse.
You have an absolute human right to choose who is allowed to be around you, do business with you, or impose themselves on you. This is another of those basic, fundamental human rights that is violated all the time by government.
Everyone has the right to associate with whoever they choose, for any reason- or for no reason at all. If you discriminate for poor reasons you may make a few enemies. If you do not wish to associate with people of certain races, religions, political persuasions, sexual orientation, or whatever else, then no one has the right to demand that you do so. Of course, if you discriminate based upon ignorant prejudices, other people can choose to refuse to deal with you, too. Even if you have good reasons for your choices, some will take issue with your decision. In this, as in every other choice you make, there will be consequences.
This right does not mean you can follow a person around, into their own territory or where they otherwise have a right to be, and then complain that you are being "forced" to be around them.
Just a few days ago I exercised this right by throwing a constant trouble-maker off my property. For about a year she has been causing trouble (including an incident about a week earlier), and I am not even her primary target; she thinks she can get to her target through me, but I do not play the "drama game". Six months ago, when she followed me and my daughter around the park, screaming at me because I wouldn't force her target to alter her behavior, I told her in very clear language to stay completely away from my daughter and me. Yet, she did not heed the "request" and showed up in the company of another person (who was invited) a few days ago. I asserted my right of association and stopped her from trespassing. I was berated and called the bad guy for exercising my right. That is fine.
Government spends a lot of money and propaganda trying to convince you that you have no right of association, and finding ways to punish people who do not buy the lie. Perhaps that is because government wishes to impose itself and its "human tools" into your private life and doesn't want you to realize you have the higher authority to say "no!".
Take note: My newest book, Kent's Liberty Primer is now available. And don't forget my childrens' book- Indy-Pindy: The Liberty Mouse.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
My books are both available now!
Indy-Pindy, The Liberty Mouse - a new childrens' book for freedom loving children, and Kent's Liberty Primer, for their parents.
Hello everyone! Here is a book that should be on every freedom-lover's bookshelf, in all their childrens' hands, and obviously, given to every disadvantaged child of statists. Indy-Pindy, The Liberty Mouse is exactly the book you are looking for to introduce kids to liberty, self-responsibility, and independence. And I'm only saying that because I am the author and illustrator. ( https://www.createspace.com/3418555 )
But that's only half of the story. I have also published Kent's Liberty Primer. ( https://www.createspace.com/3419679 ) It is an introduction to the basics of liberty, either for those unfamiliar with the concept (send a copy to "your" congresscritter, a judge, and the president) or for anyone who needs a reminder of why liberty is right and the "alternatives" are wrong.
Here's your chance to lift me out of poverty. Order a few thousand copies of each today, and spam everyone you know with hypnotically irresistible messages to do the same! Whine until your local bookstores agree to stock the book and donate a few copies to local libraries, both "public" and private. I'll be glad you did.
Oh, and if, for some incomprehensible reason, you want an autographed copy, that can be ordered directly from me for the same price in FRNs (payable by Paypal or whatever method we agree on), or for a half an ounce of .999 fine silver for Indy-Pindy or a quarter ounce of .999 fine silver for Kent's Liberty Primer. In the spirit of the free market, you are welcome to pay me more if that would make you happy.
And please, pass this newsworthy item on to anyone else who might be interested.
Thank you very much.
Kent
Hello everyone! Here is a book that should be on every freedom-lover's bookshelf, in all their childrens' hands, and obviously, given to every disadvantaged child of statists. Indy-Pindy, The Liberty Mouse is exactly the book you are looking for to introduce kids to liberty, self-responsibility, and independence. And I'm only saying that because I am the author and illustrator. ( https://www.createspace.com/3418555 )
But that's only half of the story. I have also published Kent's Liberty Primer. ( https://www.createspace.com/3419679 ) It is an introduction to the basics of liberty, either for those unfamiliar with the concept (send a copy to "your" congresscritter, a judge, and the president) or for anyone who needs a reminder of why liberty is right and the "alternatives" are wrong.
Here's your chance to lift me out of poverty. Order a few thousand copies of each today, and spam everyone you know with hypnotically irresistible messages to do the same! Whine until your local bookstores agree to stock the book and donate a few copies to local libraries, both "public" and private. I'll be glad you did.
Oh, and if, for some incomprehensible reason, you want an autographed copy, that can be ordered directly from me for the same price in FRNs (payable by Paypal or whatever method we agree on), or for a half an ounce of .999 fine silver for Indy-Pindy or a quarter ounce of .999 fine silver for Kent's Liberty Primer. In the spirit of the free market, you are welcome to pay me more if that would make you happy.
And please, pass this newsworthy item on to anyone else who might be interested.
Thank you very much.
Kent
Thursday, December 31, 2009
A resolution suggestion and Happy New Year!
A resolution suggestion and Happy New Year!
Here is a suggestion for a New Year's Resolution, if you attempt such things.
Write yourself a credo. After you have done so, you can post it where you see it all the time so that you can memorize it and will be reminded to live by it. If individual liberty is important to you (and why would you be reading this if it weren't?), make your credo adhere to the principles of liberty.
Here is my credo, just as an example:
I know there is room for improvement, and I have tweaked it many times as my understanding grows. It does give me a personalized starting place, though. Try it and see if doing this doesn't help you organize your own thoughts in a concrete way.
Happy New Year! Explore your liberty more in 2010!
*********************
Here is a suggestion for a New Year's Resolution, if you attempt such things.
Write yourself a credo. After you have done so, you can post it where you see it all the time so that you can memorize it and will be reminded to live by it. If individual liberty is important to you (and why would you be reading this if it weren't?), make your credo adhere to the principles of liberty.
Here is my credo, just as an example:
On my honor as a human being, I will give zero respect or obedience to
counterfeit 'laws' or systems of belief, present or future. I do not give, nor
have I ever given, consent to be subject to the whims of the criminal collective
known as 'government'. I will strive to avoid aggression, and will defend myself
and others in whatever way I see fit against all attacks. I will seek to live as
free in my body as I already envision in my mind.
I know there is room for improvement, and I have tweaked it many times as my understanding grows. It does give me a personalized starting place, though. Try it and see if doing this doesn't help you organize your own thoughts in a concrete way.
Happy New Year! Explore your liberty more in 2010!
*********************
Monday, December 28, 2009
Bad laws and fixing them
Bad laws and fixing them
The most common "solution" for bad laws misses the mark. It helps add to the "law pollution" that surrounds us and makes each real rule of decent behavior more likely to be lost in the maelstrom. In cases where there is an obviously bad "law", too many activists propose passing a new "law" to fix the problem. This is like continually adding patches on top of patches to your worn-out moccasins and never considering that it might be time to throw them in the fire and make a new pair.
If the law applies only to government and its agents, to restrict what they can "legally" do to you and me, I have no problem with that. Those kind of "laws" are all too rare (and even less likely to be enforced since they depend on the offenders stopping or punishing themselves).
Prohibiting government action by taking away its "legality" sometimes increases liberty by binding the enemy of liberty. Of course, you and I have to back up the law with determination and fortitude.
If, on the other hand, the new "law" applies to regular people, I don't think adding patches helps enough. It may increase liberty somewhat, but always at a high price. Normally it allows government to put a price on rights, and fool a lot of people into thinking the right is a privilege, which is never a good thing.
The better solution, when faced with a bad "law", such as those that regulate "concealed carry", to cite a common example, is not to pass a new "law" saying who can carry where, under what conditions, and for what price, but to get completely rid of the old "law" that unethically tried to restrict a basic human right in the first place.
Don't pass "better laws". Get rid of bad ones. Or simply ignore them.
**********************
The most common "solution" for bad laws misses the mark. It helps add to the "law pollution" that surrounds us and makes each real rule of decent behavior more likely to be lost in the maelstrom. In cases where there is an obviously bad "law", too many activists propose passing a new "law" to fix the problem. This is like continually adding patches on top of patches to your worn-out moccasins and never considering that it might be time to throw them in the fire and make a new pair.
If the law applies only to government and its agents, to restrict what they can "legally" do to you and me, I have no problem with that. Those kind of "laws" are all too rare (and even less likely to be enforced since they depend on the offenders stopping or punishing themselves).
Prohibiting government action by taking away its "legality" sometimes increases liberty by binding the enemy of liberty. Of course, you and I have to back up the law with determination and fortitude.
If, on the other hand, the new "law" applies to regular people, I don't think adding patches helps enough. It may increase liberty somewhat, but always at a high price. Normally it allows government to put a price on rights, and fool a lot of people into thinking the right is a privilege, which is never a good thing.
The better solution, when faced with a bad "law", such as those that regulate "concealed carry", to cite a common example, is not to pass a new "law" saying who can carry where, under what conditions, and for what price, but to get completely rid of the old "law" that unethically tried to restrict a basic human right in the first place.
Don't pass "better laws". Get rid of bad ones. Or simply ignore them.
**********************
Indy-Pindy: The Liberty Mouse
I am very pleased and excited to announce that my childrens' book is now available.It is called Indy-Pindy. It is about a mouse who moves out into the world beyond his nest and discovers that being independent and responsible is the best way to live.
I drew the illustrations too.
Ordering information: Indy-Pindy
If you have (or know of) no children to give a book to, I have another book coming out very soon so you grow-ups won't feel left out. I will announce it as soon as it is available.
For those of you who keep asking when I plan to write a book, this is your chance.
...............................................
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Curing what ails health care
Curing what ails health care
I don't often rely on someone else's writings, but this latest by L. Neil Smith fits in nicely with my advocacy of a "Separation of Life and State" by calling for a separation of medicine and state. And by listing the penalties for violating that separation.
I don't often rely on someone else's writings, but this latest by L. Neil Smith fits in nicely with my advocacy of a "Separation of Life and State" by calling for a separation of medicine and state. And by listing the penalties for violating that separation.
The Cure by L. Neil Smith
Had enough, yet?
As you are no doubt aware, the United States Senate has joined the House of
Representatives in forcing medical Marxism down the throats of tens of millions
of Americans—a clear and unmistakable majority, if democracy still means
anything to you—whether they want it or not.
Given the fact that the regime he has imposed on us, against our wills,
should end up killing thousands, if not millions of people by denying them
treatment they could simply bargain over and pay for in a free country, Harry
Reid deserves a place in history beside other mass-murderers like Adolf Hitler,
Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Pol Pot. Read the rest here.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Economic insurance for the rest of us
Economic insurance for the rest of us
I was reading something recently that recommended that you have at least a year's worth of silver and gold on hand in case of economic collapse. That would be good, obviously. But what if you are like me and are always broke?
You wouldn't need to have so much precious metal on hand if you remember that when the economy starts its downward tumble you need to immediately stop accepting US government paper, "dollars", as payment for anything- goods, time, or services. This may be seen as unsociable behavior by those who try to cling to the dying "system", but it is very important.
Would you work for slips of paper on which I sketch a little doodle and sign my name, saying that it is "legal tender" but not backing it with anything other than your trust? I hope not. The government's counterfeit "dollars" are no better unless people imagine they are better. Once people realize they are being duped, the game is over. Don't be the last one to figure it out.
So, when the inevitable occurs, just make sure that you see "Federal Reserve Notes" as the worthless IOUs they really are and accept nothing other than real money or goods for your pay. Then, any amount of silver or gold you begin with will not be depleted before it can be supplemented. In that way you will protect your own economic future.
I was reading something recently that recommended that you have at least a year's worth of silver and gold on hand in case of economic collapse. That would be good, obviously. But what if you are like me and are always broke?
You wouldn't need to have so much precious metal on hand if you remember that when the economy starts its downward tumble you need to immediately stop accepting US government paper, "dollars", as payment for anything- goods, time, or services. This may be seen as unsociable behavior by those who try to cling to the dying "system", but it is very important.
Would you work for slips of paper on which I sketch a little doodle and sign my name, saying that it is "legal tender" but not backing it with anything other than your trust? I hope not. The government's counterfeit "dollars" are no better unless people imagine they are better. Once people realize they are being duped, the game is over. Don't be the last one to figure it out.
So, when the inevitable occurs, just make sure that you see "Federal Reserve Notes" as the worthless IOUs they really are and accept nothing other than real money or goods for your pay. Then, any amount of silver or gold you begin with will not be depleted before it can be supplemented. In that way you will protect your own economic future.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Give yourself freedom for Christmas
Give yourself freedom for Christmas
I read another Examiner's column a while back where he said he wanted to ask Santa for "freedom" for Christmas. Nice sentiment, which I would be inclined to agree with, if only it worked that way.
I commented:
You can try to give freedom to someone, but some people refuse to accept it, choosing their chains instead. Others may seem to accept it, but won't hold onto that which was handed to them. Only those who make (or take) their own freedom, and fight to keep it, will stay free in most cases. It is a case of not appreciating what you have until you lose it, and freedom, once lost, is rarely regained in its entirety.
While freedom can't really be given, it can certainly be taken away. Sometimes that is justified; usually it is not. It is not right to take away your freedom unless you are attacking someone or stealing from an innocent person. And even then the goal should be to stop the attack and encourage restitution (if the attacker/thief survives) rather than "punishment".
If someone attempts to take away your freedom for a phony reason, like because of your ingestion of government-prohibited substances or for resisting being stolen from by the "tax"-man, then you are right to fight back with everything you have in an attempt to keep your freedom. Chances are, in the current police-state, it will not work. Every choice and action has consequences, and cooperating with thugs may actually be worse in the long run.
Don't count on anyone "giving you" freedom or you may have a very long wait. It is worth the effort to create your own right where you live, right now.
Merry Christmas (and/or the Winter Solstice holiday of your choice), dear readers. Give yourselves a big box of freedom today, and keep using it all year long.
I read another Examiner's column a while back where he said he wanted to ask Santa for "freedom" for Christmas. Nice sentiment, which I would be inclined to agree with, if only it worked that way.
I commented:
Of course, no one can "give you" freedom- you must make it for yourself. That's
why it sometimes looks a little ragged around the edges, but it is still the
best gift you can give yourself.
You can try to give freedom to someone, but some people refuse to accept it, choosing their chains instead. Others may seem to accept it, but won't hold onto that which was handed to them. Only those who make (or take) their own freedom, and fight to keep it, will stay free in most cases. It is a case of not appreciating what you have until you lose it, and freedom, once lost, is rarely regained in its entirety.
While freedom can't really be given, it can certainly be taken away. Sometimes that is justified; usually it is not. It is not right to take away your freedom unless you are attacking someone or stealing from an innocent person. And even then the goal should be to stop the attack and encourage restitution (if the attacker/thief survives) rather than "punishment".
If someone attempts to take away your freedom for a phony reason, like because of your ingestion of government-prohibited substances or for resisting being stolen from by the "tax"-man, then you are right to fight back with everything you have in an attempt to keep your freedom. Chances are, in the current police-state, it will not work. Every choice and action has consequences, and cooperating with thugs may actually be worse in the long run.
Don't count on anyone "giving you" freedom or you may have a very long wait. It is worth the effort to create your own right where you live, right now.
Merry Christmas (and/or the Winter Solstice holiday of your choice), dear readers. Give yourselves a big box of freedom today, and keep using it all year long.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Why not a 'Constitutional US government'?
Why not a 'Constitutional US government'?
Could I live in America under a "Constitutional US government"? Well, sure. Why not? I have been living in America under an unconstitutional US government all my life. I'm a good adapter and don't usually mind being an outlaw and ignoring government edicts.
A "Constitutional US government" would be a lot less intrusive than the criminal government America is occupied by today, but why stop there? The Constitution still "authorizes" things that are wrong. Especially, but not only, under the 16th Amendment. So, could we get rid of all the amendments after the 10th? Yes, and as long as we didn't pretend that some people are "less human" than other people it would make no harmful difference. In other words, we'd still have to live by the Zero Aggression Principle in addition to the whatever the Constitutional US government dictated in order to be an ethical society. We'd also have to cross out the whole "general welfare" and "commerce clause" nonsense to make the Constitution acceptable. Those parts have enabled great evil to be "legally" committed.
Obviously, once you start messing around with the Constitution in any way, the enemies of liberty (most Democrats, Republicans, elected "officials", and "law enforcement") would probably try to alter it to get their own draconian agenda "legitimized" which would be a big step backward.
The best bet for long-term freedom probably lies in scrapping such fatally-flawed "social contracts" for one that is completely consensual and voluntary. Such as the Covenant of Unanimous Consent. If you have an issue with actually committing yourself to something by signing on a dotted line, just live by the Zero Aggression Principle and the "Principle of Zero Initiated Deception".
So, while a "Constitutional US government" would be an improvement, it is a pitifully weak excuse for real liberty. I know what I want, and I won't stop until I get there. Why not join me?
***************************
Could I live in America under a "Constitutional US government"? Well, sure. Why not? I have been living in America under an unconstitutional US government all my life. I'm a good adapter and don't usually mind being an outlaw and ignoring government edicts.
A "Constitutional US government" would be a lot less intrusive than the criminal government America is occupied by today, but why stop there? The Constitution still "authorizes" things that are wrong. Especially, but not only, under the 16th Amendment. So, could we get rid of all the amendments after the 10th? Yes, and as long as we didn't pretend that some people are "less human" than other people it would make no harmful difference. In other words, we'd still have to live by the Zero Aggression Principle in addition to the whatever the Constitutional US government dictated in order to be an ethical society. We'd also have to cross out the whole "general welfare" and "commerce clause" nonsense to make the Constitution acceptable. Those parts have enabled great evil to be "legally" committed.
Obviously, once you start messing around with the Constitution in any way, the enemies of liberty (most Democrats, Republicans, elected "officials", and "law enforcement") would probably try to alter it to get their own draconian agenda "legitimized" which would be a big step backward.
The best bet for long-term freedom probably lies in scrapping such fatally-flawed "social contracts" for one that is completely consensual and voluntary. Such as the Covenant of Unanimous Consent. If you have an issue with actually committing yourself to something by signing on a dotted line, just live by the Zero Aggression Principle and the "Principle of Zero Initiated Deception".
So, while a "Constitutional US government" would be an improvement, it is a pitifully weak excuse for real liberty. I know what I want, and I won't stop until I get there. Why not join me?
***************************
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Government- controlling and fighting evil?
Government- controlling and fighting evil?
On my latest column there appeared a good, fairly typical comment. Nevada_Jack posted something that a lot of people are thinking; judging by comments I see here and elsewhere. He says:
Good question. "Control" should not be the goal, since I have no desire to "control" others and no intention of letting them "control" me. That is the thinking that got us into this mess to begin with. Rule yourself, and deal with those individuals who refuse to "play nice" one person at a time. Remind yourself that "government" is illegitimate and you owe it nothing but contempt. Don't obey anything you wouldn't anyway, regardless of the "law". Live by the ZAP.
Unfortunately, I know from experience that the system is rigged. I have no problem with people choosing to "work within the system" since it validates and justifies what must inevitably come when real change is prevented by that very system. I just know what the real-world results will be and am no longer surprised or disappointed. I just hope it is understood that if they try to violate anyone's rights and destroy liberty in the name of "working within the system", I will view them in the same light as I view government.
Yes, there is real evil in the world. The question is, who is a bigger danger to you or me on a daily basis? Some Islamic goat-herder who lives in a cave thousands of miles away, or a local LEO or congresscritter? I know which one has actually endangered and damaged more people that I personally know. I have never been harmed or even threatened by any Islamic person who didn't hold political office around me. If I were, what is the right way to deal with that: kill a bunch of people who didn't threaten me, or use my basic human right of self-defense to end the threat right then and there?
I never advocate for people to try to exist without any government, just no externally imposed, coercive government. Self-government- self-control- is essential, but doesn't happen consistently where there is externally imposed government. If you put braces on healthy legs, the muscles atrophy, and eventually normal walking is not possible. It is possible today, just as it has always been, to live better without what is typically thought of as "normal" government. In fact, it is not only "possible", it is the only system that has ever worked or ever will.
The risk isn't in "anarchy", since we all live our lives in that condition everyday (unless we have serious issues); it is in "chaos", specifically the slow chaos that results from government intervention in our lives. Those who are the real risk to our way of life need our active opposition to empower them. In other words, they need you to fight them. It is what feeds them and gives them a purpose. And it is how they justify their budget and all the new rights violations they enforce.
I can only speak for myself, but government is not important enough to die opposing. They really don't matter. Instead, ignore them whenever possible; defend yourself when cornered. Withdraw consent and get on with your life, with or without permission.
On my latest column there appeared a good, fairly typical comment. Nevada_Jack posted something that a lot of people are thinking; judging by comments I see here and elsewhere. He says:
Question: How do we take control away from a tyrannical government without
embedding ourselves into that system? It would be a wonderful world if we could
peacefully exist without any form of government at all, but is that possible in
this day and age? You may not believe in the Islamic threat, but surely you
can't think that there is no evil on this planet. No, I believe that we must
fight this battle from within the system or risk total anarchy. I for one can no
longer sit and watch our way of life taken away without a fight.
Good question. "Control" should not be the goal, since I have no desire to "control" others and no intention of letting them "control" me. That is the thinking that got us into this mess to begin with. Rule yourself, and deal with those individuals who refuse to "play nice" one person at a time. Remind yourself that "government" is illegitimate and you owe it nothing but contempt. Don't obey anything you wouldn't anyway, regardless of the "law". Live by the ZAP.
Unfortunately, I know from experience that the system is rigged. I have no problem with people choosing to "work within the system" since it validates and justifies what must inevitably come when real change is prevented by that very system. I just know what the real-world results will be and am no longer surprised or disappointed. I just hope it is understood that if they try to violate anyone's rights and destroy liberty in the name of "working within the system", I will view them in the same light as I view government.
Yes, there is real evil in the world. The question is, who is a bigger danger to you or me on a daily basis? Some Islamic goat-herder who lives in a cave thousands of miles away, or a local LEO or congresscritter? I know which one has actually endangered and damaged more people that I personally know. I have never been harmed or even threatened by any Islamic person who didn't hold political office around me. If I were, what is the right way to deal with that: kill a bunch of people who didn't threaten me, or use my basic human right of self-defense to end the threat right then and there?
I never advocate for people to try to exist without any government, just no externally imposed, coercive government. Self-government- self-control- is essential, but doesn't happen consistently where there is externally imposed government. If you put braces on healthy legs, the muscles atrophy, and eventually normal walking is not possible. It is possible today, just as it has always been, to live better without what is typically thought of as "normal" government. In fact, it is not only "possible", it is the only system that has ever worked or ever will.
The risk isn't in "anarchy", since we all live our lives in that condition everyday (unless we have serious issues); it is in "chaos", specifically the slow chaos that results from government intervention in our lives. Those who are the real risk to our way of life need our active opposition to empower them. In other words, they need you to fight them. It is what feeds them and gives them a purpose. And it is how they justify their budget and all the new rights violations they enforce.
I can only speak for myself, but government is not important enough to die opposing. They really don't matter. Instead, ignore them whenever possible; defend yourself when cornered. Withdraw consent and get on with your life, with or without permission.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Grow beyond 'lip service' to real understanding
Grow beyond 'lip service' to real understanding
Some people give liberty "lip service" without really meaning it. They talk about freedom for themselves and those they understand (or like), but want government to control, with threats and guns, those they don't agree with.
Anyone who is afraid of married homosexual couples, or who dislikes people who ingest government-prohibited substances, or who is afraid of "weak borders", or who obsesses over "Islamo-fascists", or who would send thugs to harass people who drive without government permission, and who prefers coercion to whatever other boogeyman they can use for their purposes are not comfortable with freedom. Instead, they are like small children who have not yet accepted their own responsibility for their lives. They project this immaturity on to others and want to see someone get "whipped".
With small children, that is normal and understandable, and is a condition we help them grow beyond by setting an example and by educating them. With "adults" it is just sad. To these people I say "Grow up". You don't need to be "protected" by government, you need to protect yourself from it.
Some people give liberty "lip service" without really meaning it. They talk about freedom for themselves and those they understand (or like), but want government to control, with threats and guns, those they don't agree with.
Anyone who is afraid of married homosexual couples, or who dislikes people who ingest government-prohibited substances, or who is afraid of "weak borders", or who obsesses over "Islamo-fascists", or who would send thugs to harass people who drive without government permission, and who prefers coercion to whatever other boogeyman they can use for their purposes are not comfortable with freedom. Instead, they are like small children who have not yet accepted their own responsibility for their lives. They project this immaturity on to others and want to see someone get "whipped".
With small children, that is normal and understandable, and is a condition we help them grow beyond by setting an example and by educating them. With "adults" it is just sad. To these people I say "Grow up". You don't need to be "protected" by government, you need to protect yourself from it.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The biggest thing you can do for freedom
The biggest thing you can do for freedom
I have previously asked and answered the question "What can I do?". Aside from that, what other opportunities exist?
There are a lot of people out there bringing us the news of each new violation of our rights. While this isn't generally my preferred area to hang around in for fun, I am grateful to the people who dare to wade into such muck for you and me, so that we will know where each new attack may be coming from. It is always good to know where the sniper is hiding.
There are also those who bring us a mix of this bad news and bright spots of hope. They let us know of others who are putting up a good fight, giving inspiring examples, letting us know where help may be needed. There is strength in numbers, and there is also a need to know you are not fighting alone.
There is also a multitude of people just complaining about government abuses, and getting really mad, without seeming to have any answers. This also has its place, though I try very hard to stay out of this pattern since it is so easy to fall in to.
The biggest thing you can do for freedom is the one "thing" that is available to each and every one of you all the time. It is not putting forth the effort to run a pro-freedom website, or to write a book, or run for office, or vote. No, the biggest thing you can do to advance freedom in the world is to simply live free each and every day, while respecting the same in others. You can do that, can't you? I know you can!
I have previously asked and answered the question "What can I do?". Aside from that, what other opportunities exist?
There are a lot of people out there bringing us the news of each new violation of our rights. While this isn't generally my preferred area to hang around in for fun, I am grateful to the people who dare to wade into such muck for you and me, so that we will know where each new attack may be coming from. It is always good to know where the sniper is hiding.
There are also those who bring us a mix of this bad news and bright spots of hope. They let us know of others who are putting up a good fight, giving inspiring examples, letting us know where help may be needed. There is strength in numbers, and there is also a need to know you are not fighting alone.
There is also a multitude of people just complaining about government abuses, and getting really mad, without seeming to have any answers. This also has its place, though I try very hard to stay out of this pattern since it is so easy to fall in to.
The biggest thing you can do for freedom is the one "thing" that is available to each and every one of you all the time. It is not putting forth the effort to run a pro-freedom website, or to write a book, or run for office, or vote. No, the biggest thing you can do to advance freedom in the world is to simply live free each and every day, while respecting the same in others. You can do that, can't you? I know you can!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
How much government contact is acceptable?
How much government contact is acceptable?
How much should a person have to encounter, or notice, government as they live their life? As long as a person is not attacking- defrauding- or stealing from- the innocent, government should have zero presence in their life whatsoever, unless they choose to contact the government on their own. (And in that case, I suggest counseling.)
That means: no permits, no taxes, no forms to fill out in triplicate, no second glances at the speedometer, no thought as to whether the gun on your hip is visible. No nothing. No contact whatsoever as long as no innocent person (who is completely unable to defend themselves, and has no one near to help defend them) is being attacked or defrauded. Even in that case they would do well to keep in mind that there is no situation so dire, so hopeless, that it can't be made orders of magnitude worse by having a LEO show up. Invited or not. If you are in real trouble, hope for help to show up without a badge.
I advocate nothing other than reduction or elimination of government in all areas, and growth or lateral shifting of government in none. A lot of what "political freedom advocates" consider "working for freedom" is only lateral movement; shifting the burden slightly to one side without actually addressing the foundational problems. The foundational problem is the act of trying to regulate or control anything other than aggression or theft (by whatever means, including "taxation").
When you have the choice, involve government in no area of your life. You will be safer and freer for it.
********************
How much should a person have to encounter, or notice, government as they live their life? As long as a person is not attacking- defrauding- or stealing from- the innocent, government should have zero presence in their life whatsoever, unless they choose to contact the government on their own. (And in that case, I suggest counseling.)
That means: no permits, no taxes, no forms to fill out in triplicate, no second glances at the speedometer, no thought as to whether the gun on your hip is visible. No nothing. No contact whatsoever as long as no innocent person (who is completely unable to defend themselves, and has no one near to help defend them) is being attacked or defrauded. Even in that case they would do well to keep in mind that there is no situation so dire, so hopeless, that it can't be made orders of magnitude worse by having a LEO show up. Invited or not. If you are in real trouble, hope for help to show up without a badge.
I advocate nothing other than reduction or elimination of government in all areas, and growth or lateral shifting of government in none. A lot of what "political freedom advocates" consider "working for freedom" is only lateral movement; shifting the burden slightly to one side without actually addressing the foundational problems. The foundational problem is the act of trying to regulate or control anything other than aggression or theft (by whatever means, including "taxation").
When you have the choice, involve government in no area of your life. You will be safer and freer for it.
********************
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
For what it's worth- Bill of Rights Day
For what it's worth- Bill of Rights Day
Today is Bill of Rights Day, an actual, real, holiday. December 15th is Bill of Rights Day every year. Everyone needs to realize that while the Bill of Rights gives people zero rights, what it does is list things that no government in the world can legitimately meddle with. It doesn't matter if the government faces this fact or not. The Bill of Rights is a list of grievances against criminal governments everywhere. It is a shame it wasn't backed up with a penalty clause, telling government employees exactly why they would be twisting in the wind the first time they proposed a "law" that infringed on even one of these listed (and unlisted) rights. How much does the US Fe(de)ral government abide by the law that gave it the only inkling of legitimacy? Lets look at the rights protected by each amendment.
- 1. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to assemble peaceably, right to petition the government about grievances. -violated by the Patriot act, violated by "free speech zones" around the president, violated by "laws" against "vices", violated by the FCC's very existence, violated by many "laws" being proposed that will be rubber-stamped by the ignorant authoritarians of the Supreme Court.
- 2. Right to form militias and the right to own and carry arms. - violated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and by the Gun Control Act of 1968, and by every other "reasonable gun law".
- 3. Citizens do not have to quarter soldiers during peacetime.- No, we just have our money stolen by government to pay for their quarters. Is there really that much of a difference? I mean, if they were "quartering" in our homes against our wishes, we would at least have the option of slipping the trespassers rat poison.
- 4. No unreasonable searches and seizures.- violated by "sobriety checkpoints" and by the "TSA", and by wiretaps on "terrorist suspects".
- 5. Rights of the accused. violated, once again, by the patriot act. Violated every time a person is deceived into confessing in order to "plea bargain". Violated each time some testoster-stoned "drug warriors" kick in a door in the middle of the night.
- 6. Right to a fair trial.- violated every time a judge fails to inform the jury about their right and duty of jury nullification- judging the "law" as well as the accused. Violated by the process of making sure anyone with more than a tiny handful of functioning neurons is kept off the jury. Wouldn't want any actual thinking going on in court, you know.
- 7. Right to a trial by jury in civil cases also.- What is the point to having a right to have a jury trial when the trial will not be permitted to be "fair"?
- 8. No cruel and unusual punishments. - violated when people are killed, kidnapped, or ruined for not caving in to the extortion of the IRS. No government "function" is worth stealing and killing to finance. Violated when people are kidnapped or killed for having done nothing but acted in some way the government doesn't like- for exercising their individual sovereignty in voluntary interactions.
- 9. Unenumerated rights go to the people. - violated by almost every "law", especially those "enabled" by the "interstate commerce" lie, and anything justified by "the common good".
- 10. Reserves all powers not given to the national government to the states or the people.- Once again, violated by almost everything the federal government does, with the complicity of the equally corrupt state governments.
So, there you have it. This is by no means a comprehensive list of all the ways government violates its charter daily. IF the US government was ever "legitimate", which it wasn't, and if the Constitution was ever a protector of freedom, which it wasn't, the evidence of the transgressions are there for all to see. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are most useful as an illustration of why government, even "limited government", is a really bad idea.
Your freedom is yours to take responsibility for. Don't depend on governments or documents to do your job for you.
*****************
Monday, December 14, 2009
These 'clauses' don't give; they steal
These 'clauses' don't give; they steal
The Constitution has fatal flaws. The "general welfare clause" and its equally twisted sibling: the "(interstate) commerce clause", have become the goose that lays the golden egg, for government at least. But that egg gets cracked open while government keeps the gold shell and dumps the radioactive yolk on the denizens of America.
Most people have noticed that government uses those two "clauses" to get away with any new violation of individual rights that they dream up. A favorite use is overriding more reasonable local "laws" that are not in line with the federal government's agenda. Notice the uproar over medical marijuana laws and the firearms freedom acts recently in the news.
It has been argued that the way those clauses are misused is not in line with "original intent", so we shouldn't blame the founders or the Constitution. Maybe, but does it matter anymore?
If a burglar steals your bread knife and uses it to cut off the head of someone in the next house he invades, do you say that he can keep the knife but that he just needs to only use it to slice bread from now on? No, you take the knife from him and shoot him if he resists. So it is with the misused clauses.
These clauses have become like machine guns in the hands of drunk and angry teenagers with knowledge of where to steal all the ammo they could ever want, while the local population is disarmed, bound, and gagged by the teens' parents. The difference is that these teens and their parents are worshiped by a large percentage of the population and these "tools" they wield have been misused, more so than any real gun has ever been, leaving a legacy of massive socialism and the resultant death, destruction, and economic ruin.
These clauses need to be taken away now, permanently, and restitution from the pockets of individual government employees should be made to all injured parties.
**********************
The Constitution has fatal flaws. The "general welfare clause" and its equally twisted sibling: the "(interstate) commerce clause", have become the goose that lays the golden egg, for government at least. But that egg gets cracked open while government keeps the gold shell and dumps the radioactive yolk on the denizens of America.
Most people have noticed that government uses those two "clauses" to get away with any new violation of individual rights that they dream up. A favorite use is overriding more reasonable local "laws" that are not in line with the federal government's agenda. Notice the uproar over medical marijuana laws and the firearms freedom acts recently in the news.
It has been argued that the way those clauses are misused is not in line with "original intent", so we shouldn't blame the founders or the Constitution. Maybe, but does it matter anymore?
If a burglar steals your bread knife and uses it to cut off the head of someone in the next house he invades, do you say that he can keep the knife but that he just needs to only use it to slice bread from now on? No, you take the knife from him and shoot him if he resists. So it is with the misused clauses.
These clauses have become like machine guns in the hands of drunk and angry teenagers with knowledge of where to steal all the ammo they could ever want, while the local population is disarmed, bound, and gagged by the teens' parents. The difference is that these teens and their parents are worshiped by a large percentage of the population and these "tools" they wield have been misused, more so than any real gun has ever been, leaving a legacy of massive socialism and the resultant death, destruction, and economic ruin.
These clauses need to be taken away now, permanently, and restitution from the pockets of individual government employees should be made to all injured parties.
**********************
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Wisdom from a libertarian-leaning 'efriend'
Wisdom from a libertarian-leaning 'efriend'
A while back on David Codrea's The War on Guns blog, "straightarrow" left the following wise comment:
Very well said, "straightarrow"! This is another potential way out, Mr. Government Employee, just like my "justice system" compromise suggestion. It is an offer. It is also your warning.
When a man gives a bullying thief every opportunity to back off and the bully declines, then the unpleasantness that results is on the trouble-maker's head. You are giving the thug an honorable way to "stand down" and leave you alone; he knows you have caught him ransacking the house of freedom. Yes, you do have a loaded 12 gauge leveled at his gut, but you don't want to shoot. The next move is his choice. What will he do? Either he can accept your offer and surrender peacefully (even if he finds the offer infuriating or painful), or he can die.
This is the position government has found itself in, whether its human tools wish to face the fact or not. Never let down your guard for an instant, even if it seems your offer has been accepted, until the predator is defanged and caged. There is no honor to be found in these parasites.
All we ask is to be left alone by those who would control or meddle; to live our lives as we see fit, harming no innocent person as we do. We will deal with any aggressors we encounter ourselves without asking to be "rescued" by other aggressors in silly suits. It is the only civilized way to live.
A while back on David Codrea's The War on Guns blog, "straightarrow" left the following wise comment:
I too, engage in political "folderol", but I used to do it because I thought it
would help avoid extreme unpleasantness. I no longer believe that, but I still
do it so my conscience is clear when extreme measures must be taken.
Very well said, "straightarrow"! This is another potential way out, Mr. Government Employee, just like my "justice system" compromise suggestion. It is an offer. It is also your warning.
When a man gives a bullying thief every opportunity to back off and the bully declines, then the unpleasantness that results is on the trouble-maker's head. You are giving the thug an honorable way to "stand down" and leave you alone; he knows you have caught him ransacking the house of freedom. Yes, you do have a loaded 12 gauge leveled at his gut, but you don't want to shoot. The next move is his choice. What will he do? Either he can accept your offer and surrender peacefully (even if he finds the offer infuriating or painful), or he can die.
This is the position government has found itself in, whether its human tools wish to face the fact or not. Never let down your guard for an instant, even if it seems your offer has been accepted, until the predator is defanged and caged. There is no honor to be found in these parasites.
All we ask is to be left alone by those who would control or meddle; to live our lives as we see fit, harming no innocent person as we do. We will deal with any aggressors we encounter ourselves without asking to be "rescued" by other aggressors in silly suits. It is the only civilized way to live.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
A compromise for the 'justice system'
A compromise for the 'justice system'
One thing I have mentioned before, but which bears repeating, is the need to wrest the "justice system" from the control of the government, even before government evaporates- a separation of court and state. People sometimes act like I have called for the law of gravity to be repealed when I mention this.
It should be obvious by now that it was a tragic mistake to allow the government to run the misnamed "justice system" and the courts. The courts don't deal in "justice"; they dole out punishment. "Crimes" that have no victim are dealt with much more harshly in many cases than is actual aggression or theft. In fact, when the thieves and aggressors are employed by the same "company" that runs the courts, there is almost no chance of any "justice" occurring, even by accident. How many IRS agents have been jailed for stealing money as part of their "job"? Why are LEOs not put on trial for assault every time they electrically torture some pre-teen or grandmother? Why is Lon Horiuchi not on death row? Because the thugs protect one another. Justice can not happen when you expect the mafia to rein in the mafia, nor when you expect the government to rein in the government. Of course, you realize I am making a distinction where none exists.
This suggestion sounds harsh to people who refuse to wake up and smell the tyranny, but the current "system" doesn't work. It is irreparably broken and corrupt, and was established on a faulty foundation to begin with. It can not be "fixed"; but must be completely discarded.
However, if the solution scares you too badly, I do have a compromise to suggest- if the government keeps control of the courts, then there must no longer be any conflict of interest allowed. Judges ruling in cases that pit government or its employees against "private individuals" must only get paid when they rule against the government, and their base pay must not be increased to make up for any shortfall. Juries must once again be made aware of their right and duty to judge the law before even considering the "facts of the case". If the "law" is judged to be counterfeit, then the accused is set free without so much as a scolding, and the court makes the arresting officers personally pay restitution to the victim of the false arrest. If even one jury nullifies a "law" it is gone forever. No one else can ever be harassed under that discarded "law". If any LEO causes harm during one of these state-sanctioned kidnappings, they face criminal charges, or in the event of a REAL justice system- are liable for restitution, just like any other attacker.
Civilization has given government thousands of years to "get it right" and government has shown no inclination to do so. Time's up.
*******************
One thing I have mentioned before, but which bears repeating, is the need to wrest the "justice system" from the control of the government, even before government evaporates- a separation of court and state. People sometimes act like I have called for the law of gravity to be repealed when I mention this.
It should be obvious by now that it was a tragic mistake to allow the government to run the misnamed "justice system" and the courts. The courts don't deal in "justice"; they dole out punishment. "Crimes" that have no victim are dealt with much more harshly in many cases than is actual aggression or theft. In fact, when the thieves and aggressors are employed by the same "company" that runs the courts, there is almost no chance of any "justice" occurring, even by accident. How many IRS agents have been jailed for stealing money as part of their "job"? Why are LEOs not put on trial for assault every time they electrically torture some pre-teen or grandmother? Why is Lon Horiuchi not on death row? Because the thugs protect one another. Justice can not happen when you expect the mafia to rein in the mafia, nor when you expect the government to rein in the government. Of course, you realize I am making a distinction where none exists.
This suggestion sounds harsh to people who refuse to wake up and smell the tyranny, but the current "system" doesn't work. It is irreparably broken and corrupt, and was established on a faulty foundation to begin with. It can not be "fixed"; but must be completely discarded.
However, if the solution scares you too badly, I do have a compromise to suggest- if the government keeps control of the courts, then there must no longer be any conflict of interest allowed. Judges ruling in cases that pit government or its employees against "private individuals" must only get paid when they rule against the government, and their base pay must not be increased to make up for any shortfall. Juries must once again be made aware of their right and duty to judge the law before even considering the "facts of the case". If the "law" is judged to be counterfeit, then the accused is set free without so much as a scolding, and the court makes the arresting officers personally pay restitution to the victim of the false arrest. If even one jury nullifies a "law" it is gone forever. No one else can ever be harassed under that discarded "law". If any LEO causes harm during one of these state-sanctioned kidnappings, they face criminal charges, or in the event of a REAL justice system- are liable for restitution, just like any other attacker.
Civilization has given government thousands of years to "get it right" and government has shown no inclination to do so. Time's up.
*******************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)