Libraries and 'sex offenders'

Libraries and 'sex offenders'

A judge has done a partially right thing. Albuquerque officials have been told they can no longer ban "sex offenders" from public libraries without violating their "First Amendment rights". At least as the "law" is currently written.

U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo claims to have struggled with the case, and claimed city officials have a "legitimate interest" in protecting children from harm, danger and crime, "especially crimes of a sexual nature."

No, Judge, governments do NOT have "legitimate interests". All government interests are counterfeit. This is just another example of claiming "compelling government interests" as a bogus excuse to flush liberty down the drain. You and I have a legitimate interest in protecting children from harm, and protecting every other innocent person from harm as well. When an organization that does nothing BUT harm thinks it has any "legitimate interests", everyone becomes a target sooner or later.

To single out "crimes of a sexual nature" is hypocritical in the extreme. Harm is harm. It is up to you and it is up to me to protect those who are innocent from the aggression of the parasites in society. Even, and especially, those who pretend to be there to "protect us" and claim a "legitimate interest" in our lives.

Government has no legitimate authority to violate a person's rights. Either ALL your rights are intact, or you are dead. Aggressors should face the near certainty that their intended victim is armed. And armed effectively and appropriately for their skill level, regardless of age. They should also face the near certainty that everyone within earshot is armed as well. Those decent people within earshot, and the intended victim, should never, ever, face the possibility of "legal" harassment for defending themselves or others from aggression.

The first attempted attack should be the last attempted attack. If you are an aggressor (sexual or not), being dead is often the proper condition. Remember that it is government which protects aggressors from facing the justifiable consequences of their actions in the majority of instances.

And that is my opinion.


*****************

Would a libertarian society break down in 'Me-first-ism'?

Would a libertarian society break down in 'Me-first-ism'?

One of the favorite anti-liberty arguments (besides the "warlord excuse" or the "government invented the internet" myth) is the claim that without government holding a gun to my head, self-interest will cause civilization to crumble.

To all those who claim that a society based upon libertarian or even anarchist principles will fail before it even has a chance, due to "everyone for himself" being the rule, I offer some observations.

You are not likely to find a more "libertarian" or "anarchistic" person than me. Yet, I am the one in the group who actually tries to consider other people while the non-libertarians with me have a "me first" attitude in almost every situation.

Even if there were no "handicapped parking" spaces, I would leave the nearest spaces for those who need them. I don't need them, and for that I am glad. Some non-libertarians I know try to manipulate the system to their advantage so they can "legally" park there regardless of actual need. Or, they simply claim they "won't be long". I'd be ashamed.

In traffic I am always trying to make room for the person who is trying to change lanes. Many (most?) non-libertarians I have ridden with act like they must "win" and not allow anyone to be in front of them on the road. There is nowhere I need to be badly enough right now to drive like that.

I am more likely to judge the situation, not the person. Not that I am perfect in this, but I am able to see when I mess up. The authoritarian "alternative" is obvious and tragic, and composes much of the "news".

There are many other examples that I could relate, but the evidence which I see with my own eyes is overwhelming. A libertarian society would be a polite society for a variety of reasons.
I understand that being considerate is in my best interest. Maybe not in the short term, but definitely in the long term. Plus, it makes me feel better.
___________________

What is it about Albuquerque and body parts? First it was the dismembered giraffe in the dumpster, and now this. While dead people don't care about what you do with their remains, their relatives do. Do what you agree to do.

Why stop at 'health care'?

Why stop at 'health care'?

If "universal health care" (sic) is such a grand idea, why not universal vehicle maintenance? My car is old (1995) and has over 200,000 miles on it. Why am I not entitled to a "free" maintenance plan, or a "free" brand new car if it is beyond hope? Besides the fact that government hates and fears the private automobile, that is.

No, I do not want government to fix or replace my car. I am being absurd to illustrate the absurdity of the proposition that government can "fix" anything.

A right to something means that no one has the authority to keep it from you. It does not mean that anyone else has the obligation of providing you with it. I have a right to own and to carry a gun. That does not obligate you to provide one for me. But, you already understand this instinctively, unlike some people.

Government-approved car repairs would probably involve taking out the engine and
replacing it with a block of concrete to help it go "reasonably fast, with your
safety in mind" (as long as it is going down a steep hill).

Government health
care: "The patient has stabilized".

Observer: "He's dead!"

Government health care:
"And that is as stable as it gets since he
isn't going to get any worse."

Government is in the business of health care prevention and demonstrates continually that it is pretty successful in this endeavor. The FDA and the DEA are a testament to that.



****************************

Why the mainstream media panders to statism

Why the mainstream media panders to statism

I don't know from personal observation, but I would guess that in the mainstream media there has been nothing but praise for the health care "reform" that was just forced down our throats (or up our...?). Except, of course, for Fox News, which only "hates" it because their preferred collectivists didn't do it to America.

It stands to reason that the mainstream media is supportive of statism. It loves things that cause drama. Murders get ratings and so do government actions. The health care takeover is just one example. It isn't big news that people can take care of their own needs if government steps aside. However, the resistance and opposition to this scheme has the possibility of getting very dramatic and messy.

The media feeds on the violence and body-count that statism guarantees. Why would they acknowledge any alternative that could threaten that?

I fully support their right to do this. What I do wish would happen is that people would realize they are being sold a fraudulent "product" and stop buying it instead of asking for more
_______________________

The "Wiccan murder" in Albuquerque seems a little suspicious to me. All the Wiccans I have ever known were more peaceable in general than those people I have known of the Abrahamic religions. Of course, I suppose calling yourself "Wiccan" is about as definitive as calling yourself "Christian" if you don't act according to the principles involved. Any religion worth practicing will condemn the initiation of force, but the acts of an individual aggressor do not reflect on the rest of the group either way if the person has violated their religion's principles.

Obama's 'Universal Health Prevention' plot

Obama's 'Universal Health Prevention' plot

Don't worry too much about the fe(de)ral government's new health prevention scheme. Yes, it is a very bad thing for the state of medical care in America (and this is coming from one of the "uninsured" people you hear about), but it is a necessary phase in the death of the State. This is one of those painful death-throes of which many liberty writers have warned.

If a huge dragon is dying and thrashing about as it spews flames all around, your best bet for survival is to not be underneath its body or even anywhere near it as it dies. Stay out of reach and don't poke it once it stops twitching to see if it is really dead. Simply get away from it. Fast!

The same with the State. Don't depend upon it for anything, and avoid it in every way you can manage. If you do so you will probably be OK.

You are on your own, but you always have been regardless of assurances to the contrary. Find doctors and nurses NOW who you trust and who are willing to work "under the table" for silver or gold, or even FRNs. There will always be some around no matter what the government dictates, but when you need their services in an emergency situation, it will be too late to try to find them.

What I would like to see is health care professionals who value liberty refusing, from this point forward, to treat anyone who works for government in any capacity. It probably won't happen, but it is what should always happen to those who are guilty of stabbing you in the back.
Otherwise you shouldn't be surprised to find yourself stabbed a second, third, or fourth time.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the "Republicans" are not equally to blame. Simply voting against something this destructive is a cowardly abdication of duty. Had they been serious about honoring their oaths of office they could have demanded the arrest of Obama and the "Democrats" in congress, or made citizens' arrests themselves. Sure, it could have been chaotic and messy, but in the face of what happened, any real act of courage would have been preferable. Of course, that would open them up to similar action when their plots involve violating their oaths of office and harming innocent people. Instead they showed the world that they are a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. Just as anyone who has been paying attention already knew.
__________________________

Census thoughts- So, I get where the Constitution authorizes the government to ask how many of "us" live in America. (Never mind all the obviously illegal questions now on the census.) What I can't seem to find anywhere is where the Constitution requires "us" to answer, nor where the Constitution authorizes the government to punish those who refuse to comply. Just food for thought.
___________________________

Would you be offended by a dead giraffe in a dumpster? A popular giraffe at the Albuquerque zoo was euthanized due to an injury, then dismembered and put in a trash bin at the zoo (that must have been a seriously big trash bin!) before being taken to the landfill rather than being taken straight to the landfill. Pardon me for thinking that it couldn't possibly have mattered to the giraffe one way or the other, since it was dead.

Using what you pay for- paying for what you use

Using what you pay for- paying for what you use

I was recently drawn into a debate in the comments on another blog. The author was telling the story of his son who has Asperger's Syndrome. In relating his experiences he mentioned that his son is enrolled in a public school for kids with special needs. This was latched onto as hypocrisy by some commenters. I think this is a gross misunderstanding of reality by people who simply do not wish to understand, so here is my two cents' worth.

I have no objection to people using what they pay for. You and I are forced to pay for public schools whether we use them or not. This is similar to the situation with government roads. You pay for them, and in the case of roads, it is impossible to avoid them, so there is no hypocrisy in using what you pay for.

Welfare involves people using things they didn't pay for. Things that other people were forced to pay for. This is not what the author was involved in. Not by a long shot.

The hypocrisy is in pretending that it is OK to have a government monopoly, or to force people to pay for something twice if they wish to use an available private option. Opting out of the government "option", including not paying for it if you choose to not use it, should always be allowed.

There is nothing carved in stone saying that using public schools is against the Libertarian Commandments. I do not think public schools are the best choice for educating your children, and in many (or most) cases I think they are even abusive. However, as long as you are being forced, at gunpoint, to pay for these schools, it is your choice to use them with a clear conscience. Until you notice your children are being harmed; then the game has changed
_________________________

The Albuquerque man who admitted murdering a couple (that's two people) on March 7th has been indicted on 17 charges. This is stupid, wasteful, and ridiculous on a scale only possible under government. Forget everything except the two murder charges and save some of that stolen "tax" loot for other things. This is what happens when you get to spend money you didn't have to earn. Just another reminder that there needs to be a separation of court and state.

Pursuit of happiness

Pursuit of happiness

What is it you want most from life? Can you get it without hurting (which includes defrauding and stealing from) other people? If you can, what is stopping you? What conditions would allow you to achieve your desire? In what sort of society would you be most likely to reach that which you want most?

I'd be willing to bet that as long as your innermost desires do not involve hurting anyone else, the only things really standing in the way are connected in some way to government. Either "laws" that prevent you from doing what you want, or "laws" that allow someone else to block your personal dreams. Remember that corporations are the "third leg" of government, and are often used with that function in mind.

I think this may be part of the origin of the hatred and bitterness so common to statists. But their bile is misdirected. They can not admit or face that they have been wrong all along, so their venom is hurled at those who show them how they could have what it is they need if only they would take responsibility for themselves. Be patient and some of them will eventually stop fanging themselves in frustration. Some may even finally allow themselves to be happy.
___________________________

In Albuquerque news, the state has given authority to the Bernalillo County Fire Department to operate ambulance services east of the city. Who gave the state the authority to give authority? Why is there a need for better services in this area? Probably it has something to do with government "granting" or withholding permission (through red tape, regulations, and "licensing") to companies who are willing to provide the service. In other words the market is being interfered with "for our protection" and is creating a shortage. Then, into this governmentally-created crisis, SuperState swoops in to "save" the day. It's the same old story, time after time.

Concensus and 'need' are not sufficient

Concensus and 'need' are not sufficient

Government may be an effective way to get some things you see no other way of getting, but it is still always wrong to use coercion. In the same vein, rape may be an effective way to "have sex" or to "feel strong and dominant" but it is always wrong, no matter how powerful your need and no matter the circumstances.

Even if you would die unless you use government to steal on your behalf you are not right if you do so. This is a harsh reality, but it is still reality. Just like you may not like the fact that if you try to walk across the surface of the moon without protective equipment the realities of the Universe will cause your death. You may think it is "not fair" but the Universe does not care.

"Fair" is not a part of reality, except when people with ethics intervene. Intervention can go either way. People can intervene for good or for evil. Coercion, theft, and fraud are forms of intervention that are always on the side of evil and any "good" that can come from them is nullified by the harm they cause. Both to the aggressor and to his victim.

If everyone- every regular person, every philosopher, every scientist, and every other expert on earth throughout all of human history- agreed that aggression and theft were OK as long as you wear the silly hat of government, and not even one person ever questioned this premise, they would still all be wrong. That is enough for me.

This has a connection with the traffic camera news from my previous column.

The Albuquerque City Council is upset that this new law could end the entire traffic camera program in Albuquerque. What a shame. Look, Albuquerque City Council, theft is wrong even if you think the city really needs the stolen money. And to attempt to justify those profitable cameras by saying their loot pays for your entire camera system is completely twisted. If you (or your program) can't survive without stealing from travelers you don't deserve to survive. Go find an honest job somewhere, hope for charity, or starve.

Robotic revenuers banned

Robotic revenuers banned

New Mexico is outlawing robotic highwaymen on "state-owned" highways. Some people may euphemistically call these robber-bots "traffic cameras".

This is good, as far as it goes, but it is a little like making it illegal for a mugger to use a switchblade while he robs and attacks you, but saying it's OK for him to keep robbing and attacking you as long as he uses a different weapon. Get rid of all the "laws" that legalize theft-by-state.

It is wrong to steal money from a driver who has caused no harm to any individual. "Might" hurt someone is a catch-all justification that could get us all at any time no matter what we are doing. Wearing the silly hat of government does not make an act of theft ethical.

Some people claim that the government owns the roads and can therefore set the rules however they like. Governments can not "own" roads, since nothing they possess was purchased with their own money, but was obtained by using theft ("taxation" and "eminent domain"), and a thief does not own the stolen property he possesses.

If a driver causes harm through carelessness or anything else, have him pay damages to the damaged individual; not to the government. More money in government hands is never a good idea.

Here is a list of some of the "state-owned" roads around Albuquerque that have been the scene of this particular form of theft in the recent past:
•Interstates 25 and 40
•Coors Boulevard
•Paseo del Norte

Remember that this only applies to "state-owned" highways and interstates and that these are not the only places where the electronic highwaymen are lurking. As long as a city, rather than the state, pretends to "own" a road the cameras may still be there continuing to commit theft on behalf of the city. Traveler beware.

Helping 'cases' or helping people?

Helping 'cases' or helping people?

Filed in the "Laws solve nothing" file:

The case of an Albuquerque woman's disappearance inspired calls for a new law to make sure it never happens again. The headline says the new law will help "missing persons cases", but that is missing the target. It does nothing to help the missing person. By the time a person is realized to be missing and the "law" comes into play, it is too late. The only way to help the person is to make certain they never go missing in the first place.

That isn't always possible, of course, but the solution is never "new laws". Instead, let's make sure every woman knows the most effective tool to allow her to defeat a stronger attacker, without suffering harm herself, is a firearm. The only person who is always present when the attack occurs, other than the attacker, is the victim. That person needs to have the knowledge, the skills, and the tools to help themselves when the attack occurs.

Let's make sure she has no reason to fear being punished or "investigated" too intrusively after being forced to fight back. The presumption of innocence needs to always be on the person who was not the aggressor; the person who does not have a history of attacks on innocent people. Let's make sure she (or he) understands that government, especially the police, has no obligation to save any individual and that relying on them can be a fatal mistake.

In other words, get rid of the "laws" that criminalize self-defense and the necessary tools of self-defense. It won't solve everything. Nothing will. But it won't be adding to the problem anymore. And that is a great beginning.

Random hatred or statist desperation?

Random hatred or statist desperation?

I am noticing a shift in the attitude of the statists online. I began to notice it before the recent misguided yet amusing comments began to flood my column, but this event certainly made me consciously aware of something that was only subconsciously noticed before.

The shift I speak of is a definite drift toward nastiness and hatred. Not just in the off-the-mark vitriol they post in my comments section, but other places as well. Theirs is not the attitude of people who think they have the high ground; rather it reeks of desperation.

I read the same tired and discredited arguments thrown up time after time, when they try to present arguments at all, that is. I see the same sorts of insults tossed randomly at the wrong target. I notice the same "fingers-in-the-ears, screaming 'La-la-la'" tactic employed again and again. In all this I recognize the militant denial of the loser.

There has always been the odd authoritarian around who can not meet criticism of his chosen religion (state worship) without snapping, but I am seeing it more and more these days. They can't refute the arguments, so they just start striking out however they can. They must know their time as the dominant, or at least loudest, ideology is coming to an end. The panic of realization is setting in.

Perhaps it is due to the repeated failure of coercion to make anything resembling a "better world". Maybe it is due to the stress of seeing fiat money systems collapsing. Maybe their "hope and change", or their "traditional values" have let them down one too many times.

It is sad to see people losing all they have ever believed in, but that's the tragedy of believing in something that is wrong. If they can stop throwing stones long enough to listen, there are plenty of people willing to teach them how to help themselves. However, the responsibility for their own destruction rests solely upon their own heads if they refuse to grow up.

Instead of finding this "attention" disheartening, I find it a confirmation of being on the correct path. Feel free to respond to this "person" as he leaves his fetid droppings everywhere, if you are so inclined. I, however, am finished with him*. You can't reason with a carrot.

*However, I will not delete his comments since they illustrate my point so well. Give the monkey a loaded gun and stand back.
_______________________________

A group of mentally disabled people (not the commenter referred to above, as far as I know) was found to be locked inside their Albuquerque home. A home managed by a "corporation" (a government-favored business) that receives operating money from government might not be the best place to place your disadvantaged relatives. Private business and individuals are more accountable to their customers. But, that's just my opinion. Fortunately, no one died in this case.

Overcoming a prejudice- better late than never

Overcoming a prejudice- better late than never

One mental stumbling block that took me a long time to get past was being concerned when someone was known to be a "convicted criminal". I know it is stupid, and even back then I intellectually understood that most "crimes" are not actually wrong, plus being "convicted" of something isn't even very good proof that you really did it. Still, the brainwashing was powerful and hard to shake.

I was finally able to get past this blockage several years ago. Now I don't care if someone has been convicted of a "crime". I only care if they really did something that is actually wrong, not just "illegal".

Of course, I have known people who had been convicted of various things which are flat-out wrong. Things like aggression and theft. Some of these people didn't even deny doing the bad things. They simply have no principles that allow them to see that doing these things is wrong. Or they think circumstances excuse them. They are wrong. I still have prejudices against this type of person.

Even worse are those who I know to be engaged in committing acts of aggression, fraud, and theft with the approval of the State. Many of these are employed by the State itself, although some just pretend to be since they idolize the "occupational parasites".
_________________________

As if you need reminders of why it is necessary and smart to stay alert and armed at all times, a "man" from Albuquerque drove all the way to Oklahoma City to attack his wife (who apparently had good reason to leave this jealous psychopath) and set her on fire in front of their three children. You don't know how much I'd prefer reading that she had shot and killed this rabid monster as soon as he entered her home. But, alas, it was not to be. This tragedy is your learning opportunity. Use it.

Pitting governments against one another

Pitting governments against one another

As much as I value individual liberty, and probably to a large extent because I value individual liberty, I must admit I enjoy seeing governments fighting one another. I just try to stay out of the way and not get caught in the crossfire.

This is why I support the "state sovereignty" and secession movements, at least in spirit. Even though I owe a "state" no more loyalty than I owe a "nation" (none at all), it amuses me to think of the two governments posturing and fighting.

The same goes for the Firearms Freedom Acts being introduced in various states. I don't expect any state government to actually arrest or kill ATF agents who try to enforce nullified federal gun "laws", but even the empty blustering makes me smile.

Then there are the medical marijuana laws. The DEA's house of cards, burdened with decades of lies and abuses- including murders by the hundreds, continues to get shakier and more transparent with each passing day. For state governments to stop buying the load of bull the federal drug warriors keep trying to sell is a fun thing to witness. Once again I don't expect to see DEA thugs or their local rabid attack dogs punished in any meaningful way by more local governments, but I like to see the friction between various gears of government increasing.

It is even what makes me like certain candidates, even if I don't play the "voting game" anymore. Getting an uncooperative person elected, someone who will cause The State nothing but problems and gridlock, would please me. I like it even better if the person is biased toward liberty rather than toward some form of socialism that the rest of the government tools uncharacteristically dislike.

So, what about it Albuquerque? Are there any more monkey-wrenches lying around that can be thrown in the works? How about some of you pushing for a New Mexico Firearms Freedom Act? Or a "Sovereign New Mexico" movement? Why not increase the demand for medical marijuana?

And, finally, a friend asked me to pass this along- If you still participate in electoral politics and want to help with a campaign, Adam Kokesh is probably the best New Mexico candidate for messing with the status quo, and although his district doesn't quite include Albuquerque, it gets close. Allison Gibbs is working for Adam Kokesh; seeking help getting a thousand signatures for "some ballot difficulty". If you feel so inclined, help her.

Government 'requests'- The answer is always 'no'

Government 'requests'- The answer is always 'no'

The standard response to any government "request", demand, or threat should be a firm "No". Whether it is the census, a demand to comply with a new "law", or any other authoritarian nonsense.

Now, I realize it is hard to actually look a person in the eye and refuse to cooperate with them. I know from personal experience it is even hard to talk to a flesh-and-blood vampire of the State on the phone and refuse to cooperate when they are being desperately polite. Especially when that person is simply trying to do their job, and they think their job is "good" for society (even as it harms the individuals who comprise that society). You will be labeled a "troublemaker" and the simple-minded bureaucrat will not understand why you don't just give in. I'm certain it is the same in Albuquerque as it is everywhere else.

I don't judge anyone for doing what they feel they must. But I ask you to really think about it the next time you are presented with the choice to stand up for yourself or grovel on your knees. Because, really, there is no choice.

Speaking of the census; don't forget that there is no justification for it that passes the "baloney test". Read this again if you need a reminder.

Guns in restaurants

Guns in restaurants

Now that Governor Richardson has made it "legal" you may soon be dining in a restaurant, which serves some alcohol, next to someone carrying a concealed weapon; a situation which would have been utterly impossible under the old prohibition. Or, at least that is the government's story.

Sorry to disappoint the governor, but people have always carried into those restaurants anyway.
Both good people who understand the concept of "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" and bad guys who obviously have no ethical problem breaking laws which prohibit theft, murder, and other acts of aggression and who will never be stopped by a silly "law" prohibiting them from carrying a gun somewhere.

Notice, too, that attacking innocent people with that gun is still not permitted. Unless you are a LEO, of course, judging by the "Only Ones" news. In the world of real right and wrong, it's all about the act of aggression, not the tool you use.

Next time you are dining in a restaurant in Albuquerque, look around you. Is the person sitting at the next booth or table armed? By its very definition, if that person is carrying a concealed weapon, how would you know?

You have always had a basic human right which predates even the very first government ever imagined to own and to carry ("keep and bear") any weapon you think will help you survive an attack, regardless of any governmental wishes, restrictions, or "laws". Use it.
__________________

ID "borrowing"?

A while back I had the odd experience of running across a MySpace profile which appears to be me, but which I didn't set up. That profile picture is my cartoonified self which I use frequently, and those are some of my links. Could the bad link to my blog have been the point of the whole thing? To phish information? Or could it have been an honest mistake in linking? Some info is obviously wrong. Here is my real MySpace profile.

I sent the other "me" a friend request, but I guess "I" haven't logged in since then. Very odd, indeed.

I'm not quite sure whether to be flattered or creeped out. At least the fake "me" hasn't posted anything (as far as I can see) that offends me or drags my reputation through the dirt (worse than I do on my own, I mean). I suppose it just goes to show the utility of googling yourself from time to time.

Over-cooperation with the state

Over-cooperation with the state

I'll admit it. This story from the Albuquerque area, which has "gone national", has me stumped as to what to think.

A woman who decided she was too drunk to drive, stopped driving, called the cops to report herself, and was then arrested by the grateful LEO.

Now, since she had not hurt anyone, and had pulled off the road like a responsible person would do, and even (foolishly) reported herself to the "authorities", it seems those "authorities" should have had the decency to go easy on her. Perhaps take her home and thank her for being responsible enough to stop driving as soon as she realized she shouldn't be driving.

Instead, as is usually the case when the State (in the generic sense of the term) is involved, she had to be punished. After all, there is no money or power to be grabbed by the state unless criminal charges or "civil penalties" can be levied. Right?

Obviously, her mental state was not right, judging by statements she made to the responding deputy. The same observation could be made about anyone who hands themselves over to agents of the state, though.

I suppose the lesson here is that some people are just too brainwashed into the cult of Ruler-worship to recognize that calling the "authorities" isn't the smart thing to do. I doubt these same people would hesitate even an instant before doing you or I the same "favor".

Odds and ends again

Odds and ends again

One way to know who the truly brainwashed among us are is to watch for the common "mating call" of the statist. It goes like this:

"Stupid libertarian! You sit there and criticize the government, but
without it you wouldn't have the internet, or freedom of speech, or police
(promise?!) or fire protection, or roads, and your children would be stupid
because there would be no schools!"

You will notice, if you are aware, that once a person has been this deeply brainwashed their ability to tell the difference between "society", civilization, and State is fatally compromised. So is the ability to see that there are plenty of ways to provide every service that is truly needed without relying on theft or coercion even a little bit.
________________________________

Live smart. Don't attract unnecessary attention to yourself. You are in enemy-occupied territory. Even if you still like the idea of a powerful, coercive government, that government does not like you.

Even if you think you need that government, you don't. But it does need you. Parasites can not live without a host. As long as you can be fooled into accepting your place as a living host for a deadly parasite it can continue to suck the life out of you. Whether you are aware of the reality or not.

Accept your true place as a sovereign individual with all your rights intact. Accept that those around you are the same, and that they possess the same rights in just as full-measure as you.
Accept that initiating force or sending others to do so in your place is never a valid choice. Doing so makes you the bad guy, no matter how strongly you want that to not be true. Reality is more powerful than your wishes.
________________________________

In the news: Once again, the impossible has happened. Some of you may not be aware, but murder is illegal in Albuquerque. But it happened. Twice in one house!

How can this be? I thought the answer to stopping everything bad was to make it "illegal". I guess guns should have been prohibited, too, so that a jealous madman, intent on killing, would have had to find a different outlet for his rage. More "laws" would have prevented this, right?
And, if you believe that, cut me in on that foreign lottery you just won (according to the emails).
________________________________

Don't forget my books. I even have a completely non-political one for your animal-loving friends and family members. I promise not to judge their life-choices.

Spontaneous order

Spontaneous order

Spontaneous order is not "chaos". Instead, it is anarchy. Spontaneous order is what you get when there is no "control" over a situation beyond things (or people) acting according to their nature. It is what makes a snowflake always form with six sides, and what makes the Universe display other beautiful patterns and function as it does. It is also what would provide for peaceful and mutually beneficial interactions among free people if there were not the insane control-freaks always trying to impose their "better way" from afar.

As spontaneous order in nature gets studied more, and hopefully understood better, perhaps educated people will begin to understand what wise people have known all along: that left alone, things will generally work themselves out in a beneficial way. And if they don't, imposing control wouldn't have made the situation any better anyway.
_____________________

And, in ABQ news- An Albuquerque woman has been indicted on "tax evasion" charges. This is always so disgusting to me. That the government could pretend it is wrong to not pay extortion to a group of thieves wearing the silly hat of government is absurd. Government does not "need" your money to operate, since it can counterfeit all it wants. To threaten to kidnap this woman for up to nine years or to steal $30,000 more from her, at gunpoint, shows just who is committing the act of evil here, and it is NOT Angela Two Bulls. Each individual who sat on that grand jury should be ashamed enough to commit suicide.

No new cops?

No new cops?

The budget crisis has caused the Albuquerque Police Department to close* its LEO academy. So, no new ABQ LEOs. Good first step. Now, what would be the best next step? Remove "legal" prohibitions on self-defense and defense of property. Then fire the rest of the cops.

LEOs are just the collection arm of the city government anyway. Without them tasked with finding excuses to steal money and property on behalf of their masters, those masters will need to go out and find honest jobs.

LEOs also are "necessary" to maintain the myth of "chaos". They enforce "laws" that make aggression and theft safe for the bad guys so that the "crime" can be used as an excuse for the continuation of the failed status quo. The bitter (for them) truth is that without the "law" protecting the Rulers and the freelance thugs ("criminals") from facing the consequences of their poor career choices, they will either find honest ways to live, or they will die. Either way, it is very good news for the productive denizens of the area.
______________________________

*Government never "closes" anything permanently. A manufactured "outcry" will undoubtedly cause them to either "find" the money somewhere or hold some other program hostage until the "academy" is rescued from the trash heap of statist obsolescence. Just watch.

Dialing '911'- Are you sure you want to take that risk?

Dialing '911'- Are you sure you want to take that risk?

Too many tragic events begin with a person in trouble, or someone acting on their behalf, picking up the phone and dialing "911". Then, into this already tense situation come armed agents of the state whose very job it is to find things to "arrest" people for. This is not a recipe for solving problems, but for manufacturing them. It complicates a situation. Too often the person in trouble, or a family member, ends up being attacked or killed by the responding cops.

There is a huge difference between calling 911 when you are being held hostage by a crazed lunatic and calling 911 because of a medical emergency or a fire. In the first instance it is probably not always the optimum solution to have cops show up; in the last two it can be positively disastrous.

There needs to be an alternative to 911 where cops are not sent by default. Calling 911 has become too dangerous, since there is no situation so bad it can't be made worse by adding a cop, and since LEOs now have the "us vs. them" attitude drilled into them during their training.

Calling 911 could be made safe again, if cops were only sent if the person didn't request they not be sent. Of course, this entirely reasonable request would be seen as an admission of guilt rather than a recognition of the dangers inherent in mixing guns and badges. Obviously this means that what is needed is a free market solution, not administered by the government in any way.

_______________________

In other news, just in case you think LEOs and their leash-holders are the "good guys"- Here is another location following the example of Albuquerque's scam to "legally" steal cars and extort money.

Authoritarianism is the pits

Authoritarianism is the pits

Few people are a solid block of authoritarianism. Most are like a cherry pie of libertarianism with a few pits of authoritarianism hidden inside. There is no problem when interacting with them until you encounter these pits.

The pit may be "abortion", or welfare of some sort ("social security", "farm subsidies"), or it may be a desire for the state to impose religious "values" on those who do not share that religion. Some people are so full of pits that it is impossible to interact with them without the experience being a miserable encounter, and some people have such a small pit it may never be noticed unless you are really trying.

Part of life and self-responsibility should be about discovering your own pits and eliminating them, not about zealously defending your pits or adding more pits to your pie.
___________________________

In a completely unrelated news story, "fleeing" robbery suspects were shot at yesterday by an Albuquerque LEO. Now, I have no problem with anyone defending themselves from attack. Even LEOs and freelance aggressors still retain the right of self-defense. My skepticism comes from the claim that the "fleeing" suspects were trying to run over the LEO. It seems convenient and I have seen other cases where such a claim on the part of LEOs was completely fabricated to justify shooting. Remove the uniform and badge from the mix and would the shooting have been justified (according to the government) or would the shooter be facing charges? Excuse my lack of credulity where the narrative of the LEOs is concerned, but I have seen enough deception from "officials" to make me want proof before I accept their version of events. Maybe there is independent video of the shooting that will show what happened. Until then, I reserve judgment.

Fighting to control the train's rudder

Fighting to control the train's rudder

Electoral politics is like fighting over who gets to hold the rudder of the train. The people who want to control the rudder, or who vigorously support the candidate they want controlling the rudder, are misguided at best.

If you are ever on a train which has a rudder you can be certain it is merely a distraction from the real business of running the train. Possibly for the purpose of keeping the well-meaning but ignorant "citizens" busy and out of the way. The fact is that the real focus needs to be on who built the tracks, where those tracks are leading, and who's at the throttle. But those things are not ever up for a vote. This is not an oversight, but is by design.

Bureaucrats, many politicians, favored corporations, and certain powerful insiders are happy that so many are fighting for control of the rudder. It ensures that no real change will ever take place to threaten the status quo.

So don't worry about the rudder, but don't condemn those who wish to hold it for the feeling of control it gives them. If possible point out the truth about the rudder but don't be surprised when people accuse you of not caring that the train is headed for a ravine because you don't share their concern for the rudder. It is a delusion that is deeply seated in a great many people and a lot of effort is expended keeping that delusion in place.

Next time it is election day, please keep this in mind and don't allow yourself to be distracted with busy-work that does nothing for Liberty.


*********************

'Only Ones' hate competition

'Only Ones' hate competition

An Albuquerque man learned a valuable lesson: Don't be a fake cop because the "real" cops don't like the competition.

He got caught when he ordered police equipment and then didn't pay for it. This is of no ethical difference than what "real cops" do, except they (or their departments) use stolen money to "pay for" the tools they use. It simply moves the theft to a slightly different step of the process. How is that "better"?

The man is a thief, that much seems clear, however I hear no implications that he kicked in any doors in the middle of the night, nor that he electrocuted anyone for not showing him "proper respect", nor that he extorted any money from people for consensual acts. I have heard nothing to indicate that he wants people to be shot dead for exercising their basic human rights. All in all, that puts him in a position of ethical superiority to most LEOs. So, who is the real danger to "public safety"?

The official LEOs have a nice racket going on. They get to spend money that is not theirs to spend, on tools that are forbidden to the rest of us, and then they get to be the Only Ones and have fun enforcing "laws" no decent person would ever consider legitimate. "Laws" that violate their oath and violate their one true duty to protect the rights of the individual, whether the threat comes from a freelance thug or from government. There is no other reason to permit a "police department" to exist.

What I completely fail to understand is why anyone would choose to pretend to be a LEO. Were all the prime gang-wannabe positions already filled?
_______________________

On a closely related subject: Learn to Identify the Humans, by Iloilo Jones.


*********************

Government protects its own

Government protects its own

Do you need more proof that "some animals are more 'equal' than others"? Look no further than passed-out-drunk Albuquerque LEO, Sergeant Richard Guzman.

I have mentioned his glowing example a couple of other times, even going so far as to mention that by pulling over and trying to "sleep it off", he did the responsible thing (which is "illegal" at this time). Would he have arrested a non-badged person for doing as he did? I'd be willing to bet real money (silver or gold) that he would have without a second thought.

Now a judge has once again shown that a conflict of interest prevents justice from happening under government-owned courts. Judge Sandra Engle denied the motion for Guzman to be fingerprinted and "booked", calling it "premature."

Would you or I get that kind of professional courtesy? Don't count on it.


***********************

Seasteading: Let's get to it

Seasteading: Let's get to it

Seasteading- it is already being done by the rich. Let's look at ways it might work for the rest of us. Yes, the "high seas" are a lot different from the high desert around Albuquerque, but a change of scenery isn't always bad. This is just my own brainstorming session, and certainly not the only possible way the project could play out.

First of all, I'm sure there either are some of those gigantic cruise ships for sale somewhere, or soon will be. A huge container ship might even be purchased and retrofitted for the purpose. Either way, it is not impossible to do, and becomes more imperative to try with each new governmental violation of basic human rights.

The only "law" on a "libertarian seastead" would be the Zero Aggression Principle and the related "principle of zero initiated deception". Nothing else would be "enforceable" or expected, because there would be no "authorities". Each person would "enforce" a respect for rights and liberty in their own sphere. Nothing other than mercy would protect bad people from the consequences of their aggression, theft, and fraud. In an absence of government, being an aggressor or thief would be a very, very foolish choice.

In my thought experiment, it wouldn't necessarily "cost" you to live aboard unless you were among the "idle rich", since you would probably run your own business of some sort, rather than having the on-board shops and restaurants owned by the ship's owners (whoever they might be). Nothing would prevent or stifle competition among the residents. If there is already a barber shop, open a better or cheaper one.

Each part of the ship would be private property, including "common areas". How would that work? I'm not sure. Perhaps each person would own the hallway in front of their quarters, along with the privileges and liabilities that go along with it, unless they choose to sell it to someone else. The captain and crew would be employees. The ship itself, such as the engines and hull... who would "own" it? Maybe the residents could each own specific parts or, if people really think it works well (I don't) they might own "shares" in the things such as the engines. How would fuel and maintenance be financed? There could not be "taxation" in the traditional sense, since theft is forbidden for everyone. Maybe "utilities" and services would include the cost of running the ship. Most businesses or residents might be willing to donate money toward fuel and maintenance since that would make it much easier to get goods and travel where they want to go. There would undoubtedly be "free riders", but that is not a real drawback unless you want it to be.

If wealthy people want a luxurious suite, they have that option. There would still be plenty of room for suburbs and even "slums". There might even be "tent cities" below deck. People who didn't have much need somewhere to start, and someone might be willing to rent out large chambers for such a purpose.

There would be no "official currency"; people would be free to offer payment, and accept payment, in whatever form they preferred. If they choose to do business off-ship, it might be good to have things that are accepted in port, as well. Private banks on-board might provide a valuable service in this case.

True medical freedom could be found in such a situation, unlike anywhere on land under government "supervision". Even people who might not agree with the operating principles of the community might seek treatment from the doctors on board, and provide an infusion of outside wealth.

Food could be grown on board and harvested from the ocean. Metals might even be separated from seawater or collected from the ocean floor by entrepreneurs on the seastead. And, of course, sunken ships could be found and "mined" as well.

Security would be up to the individual. If you wish to have a metal detector at the door of your business, that is up to you, but don't count on getting many customers. If a port has a prohibition on personal weaponry, then only those willing to take the risk would disembark. Perhaps if the ports did not wish to have an armed ship even docked, there could be shuttles that would make the run to and from the ship, to bring goods and passengers.

I think a gunsmith (or three) would find it a very liberating environment. The next John Moses Browning might find this the perfect situation to experiment without an ATF agent or other parasitical vermin breathing down his neck. Real weapon innovation could once again be tried. Mourn any pirates who try to take over or loot this ship.

To be honest, I have lots more thoughts on this, but this column is getting too long already. Perhaps there may be a "part two", but regardless, let your own imagination run wild. Every "problem" has a solution that does not require coercion. It is just a matter of thinking of it.

'Criminalizing' our way to Utopia?

'Criminalizing' our way to Utopia?

"Laws" will never make the world a better place, and long ago actually started making it worse. Each day we see more and more things criminalized. For what? Usually because someone, somewhere was upset that something unfortunate happened. Yet, unfortunate things will continue to happen no matter how many "laws" are dreamed up.

If you have been reading my thoughts for long, you will recognize my term for this situation: "law pollution". And it is a real threat that grows more critical by the day.

At this point in the history of civilization each new "law" only means that another "danger" will rise up to take its place, once again threatening the small number of people who might actually be saved as a direct consequence of the new prohibition. That is because the world is not static, and neither is human behavior. When you add in the number of people killed in order to finance and enforce the new "law" you have entered negative territory; you are losing ground. Each new "law" results in more people harmed than the "problem" it was (supposedly) intended to fix. Don't pretend that "laws" are not the direct cause of death, because every one of them is.

Just one example (out of an almost infinite number) is the "texting and driving prohibition" nonsense. Innocent people have been harmed and killed by irresponsible people texting and driving (and not only in cars) all over the world, and Albuquerque is no exception. I don't dispute this fact. What I do dispute is the magical thinking that believes that enough "laws" can eventually be passed to make innocent and/or fearful people mostly safe. It can't happen because it violates the way the Universe really operates and pretending it can happen is delusional in the extreme. Do I think people will die as a result of being "legally prohibited" from texting and driving? No. Sensible people will ignore the counterfeit "law" if they need to. But the tragedy is that in today's world, every encounter with a LEO is a potentially lethal situation. Anything that gets a cop's attention and makes him notice you can get you killed. LEOs and all other governmental employees are paid with stolen money- stolen from those in society who produce something of value. Resist or try to keep your own property for your own use and eventually, at some point, as agents of the government continue to escalate the coercion and violence with each of your refusals to be willingly stolen from, you will be killed.

It is time to start thinking from a new direction about solutions for the real dangers that exist. New technology can ameliorate many of them. Removing governmental coercion and minding your own business can get rid of many more. In other words, when you are heading the wrong direction it is time to stop and turn around. Continuing on your suicidal path is not "progress". Life is not safe, nor will it ever be. "Safety" and "living well" have never been compatible.

Stop looking so hard for disagreements

Stop looking so hard for disagreements

We who love liberty should not be forced to join together in order to survive. After all "to each his own" is at the foundation of our values. The simple reality is that there is strength in numbers, and as individuals we are easier to surround and defeat. As long as a majority of people believe coercive, external government is acceptable, this will always be a danger. I am not saying liberty is necessarily more elusive for the individual who has no one watching his back, but it is nice to have others you can count on in a pinch. Yet, disagreements over the word "libertarian" and issues like abortion continue to keep us divided. This prevents us from mounting an effective defense against the Orcs of statism. This is very unfortunate.

A big part of the superiority of libertarianism is that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that each individual is valuable. This is not just a trite saying, as it is with authoritarians who parrot the idea, but is deeply thought out and lived with consistency. We know that "groups" are only as good as each member treats each other member and non-member, and deserve only as much respect as they each, individually, give to every other individual. This clashes with the authoritarian mindset which values the collective over the individual and ignores the fact that without the individual, there is nothing. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" only has merit if each one of those "few" comes to that conclusion on his own, and not through intimidation or coercion. Otherwise, it is a philosophy of death and destruction.

You, as an individual who understands and loves liberty, have plenty of opposition without trying to look for reasons to disagree with other "libertarians". I want to look for reasons to agree; not to argue.

Ron Paul shows 'the system' is broken

Ron Paul shows 'the system' is broken

Dr. Ron Paul is the only decent person in congress, or in any of the three branches of the fe(de)ral government for that matter. That isn't to say he is right on every issue; he's not. He is also irrefutable proof that "the system" does not work.

You can't convince me that his district in Texas is the most "libertarian" district in the nation, yet even with his largely libertarian stance he keeps getting re-elected.

Nor is he the most libertarian candidate who has run for national office. The others can't seem to get elected. I seriously doubt he is just the perfect "balance" of libertarian and authoritarian that "the voters" prefer. If he ran for office anywhere else in the country, such as in Albuquerque, especially against the local incumbent, I doubt he could win. This is the negative chaos that I have spoken out against that comes from allowing a government to exist.

I'm not saying it is bad that Dr. Paul got elected, I am just saying it shows a flaw in "the system". In the swamp of "red state/blue state" nonsense, there is no "gold (libertarian) state" where someone who rejects the authoritarian status quo can expect to win office, yet he did. The system is broken beyond redemption.


Reminder: Don't forget my books as tools for learning about, and spreading, Liberty.

Abortion: This Libertarian/Anarchist's Opinions

Updated 2-22-2010

Abortion is an issue that is only good for one thing: dividing people. I have read libertarian positions on both sides that were absolutely adamant that their position was right, and that the other side were monsters. The libertarian debate centers on just a couple main points: is the embryo a human being with all its rights intact, or is it a part of the mother's body, or is it a human being, but if not wanted, a trespasser? I am convinced that if abortion is wrong, it would still be wrong even in cases of rape or incest. The embryo had no choice in the matter, and many really good people began in horrible ways.

First off, I will say that no one, including me, knows for certain if abortion is right or wrong, they just think they do. That is because there is not enough scientific data to make a truly rational decision. Emotions on both sides cloud the mind and make coherent thought difficult.

Still, a few thoughts occur to me. I can not tell a human fetus from the fetuses of several other creatures by looking at them. I would bet that even the experts would have a very hard time telling a chimpanzee from a human until late in the pregnancy. A fertilized egg is life, but not a separate life. There are religious ideas of when the embryo becomes a separate life-form from the mother, but not really any convincing scientific proofs. I do know that once a baby is born it is a separate life-form, a person, with all its human rights intact. I can't remember anything that happened to me before I was around 2 or 3 years old. I went through some traumatic experiences that I can't recall at all, so it really doesn't concern me that they occurred. I would not care if I had been aborted. I wouldn't miss me at all.

Almost no one claims that a simple fertilized egg is a person, and almost no one claims that a full-term baby isn't one. The true dividing line is somewhere in between those extremes. No one knows for sure where it is, though many people "believe" they know where. In case of doubt I would tend to side with the mother, whom I can easily recognize as a complete, sapient human being who undoubtedly has all her rights functioning.

I feel that when the day comes that embryos can be transplanted or put into an artificial womb at any stage of development it will make abortion, as a divisive issue, fade away. So why do "pro-life" activists not spend their time, money, and talents on designing this technology? I think it is because they prefer to tell others how to live their lives instead. It is harder to use unwanted pregnancies to condemn a person's sex-life if the pregnancy is not a burden. In a great many cases, and from personal experience, I do think a desire to demonize sexual activity lies behind much "pro-life" activism".

This brings us to the religious objections. Almost all objections to abortion are at the core religious objections, which is fine until you try to impose your religion on someone else who does not share your religious views. Murder is wrong, but opinion is divided if abortion qualifies as murder. Not that "majority opinions" should decide any issue for anyone. It seems to come down to whether or not you believe humans have "souls". And if they do have souls, are those souls installed at conception or sometime later?

The issue of souls brings up another question in my mind. Just say that the conservative Christian claim that humans have souls and that they get those souls at conception (which is the claim I was raised with) is correct. Then assume for a moment that their other claim is also correct and that there is only one very specific way for those souls to go to Heaven. I was also taught that aborted and miscarried fetuses, babies, and young children got a free pass into Heaven because they did not yet understand "right and wrong", so were still innocent. That would mean that almost everyone (based on percentages) in Heaven would be one of these "free pass" souls. Aborted babies would almost certainly end up in Hell if they weren't aborted, considering that parents who would abort would not train their children in the proper way (once again, according to the conservative Christian position I was raised with). So, it seems a bit cruel to send all those people to Hell just to promote your agenda.

I would not use public funds to finance abortions or any other medical procedures, because there is no such thing as "public funds"; it is all stolen ("tax") money.

I think the best intellectual exercise for thinking about this is what L. Neil Smith asks: Say you are right and abortion is murder. How do you propose to regulate it? Do you make all pregnant women register to make certain that their pregnancies are not terminated? What if you can't yet tell by looking that they are pregnant? Should all women and girls of reproductive age submit to a monthly pregnancy test to keep tabs on them? Where do you come up with the new bureaucracy, "The Department of Reproduction", to regulate pregnancy? Who pays for it?

I am not a woman and can't get pregnant, so for me to pretend that I am an expert on pregnancy or abortion would be dishonest. I do have another thought that does concern men even more directly, though. As long as abortion is legal, men should be able to legally terminate any financial or parental responsibility for a child that they do not wish to father. After all, that is what abortion does for women. If it is right for one person, it is right for everyone.

I would never send government or its agents after a person who seeks an abortion. Mostly, it comes down to my attitude of "keep your filthy government off of my life!"

So, what is my personal opinion? I don't really like abortion, but would not forbid it to people who feel differently than I do about it. I do not think abortion is a good first choice for birth control. There are so many other options that are easier and cheaper. I have obviously never had an abortion, nor have I ever encouraged anyone to have one, even in cases where it would have been very bad for me if a pregnancy had occurred. In this way I have done my part to not add to the number of abortions. Keep your own house in order and mind your own business. It's the way of Liberty.




____________________________

Statist brainwashing still works

Statist brainwashing still works

Recently a person wrote to me to disagree about how government has impacted liberty in America. He made a couple of statements that I think reflect the perceptions of the majority of the people around us. I'm betting that if you have spoken to many people about liberty you have heard the same statements. He starts off with this assertion about freedom of travel:

"I can travel anywhere I want, at any time I want, without fear of being
detained."

That just isn't true, as much as I wish it were. Passports, the TSA, "highway patrol", driver's licenses, "checkpoints", and other such government nonsense have destroyed true freedom of travel in America. That other places around the world may be worse does not change the reality of what travel in America has become. Government now views travel as a privilege to be granted or denied at its whim.

The same goes with jobs, concerning which he says:

"I can work where I want, doing what suits me to earn a living, without
government interference."

Yet that isn't true either. I once needed a job, and wanted one I would enjoy. I applied at a business I really wished to work at, and that I could see really needed the help. They said they couldn't afford to hire anyone. I offered to work "under the table" for less than "minimum wage", but they were too afraid of getting in trouble with the government to agree to it. Licenses, permits, taxes, certifications, and red tape have destroyed true freedom to work where you want, doing what you want, in America. Once again, other countries may be worse, but that is still no excuse to allow it here.

Both examples are what I call the "Fire ant/lava parable", which goes like this:

Imagine you are standing in a bed of fire ants. While looking east you see a crater filled with lava. You should be very grateful that you are not in the lava. If you only look toward the east, you might truly believe that your situation is the best that there can be. All the while, west of you is a green meadow filled with Twinkies and butterflies (or your pleasures of choice). If you are surrounded by a chorus of voices telling you that your fire ant bed is the best place there is, and that you are Utopian or stupid for thinking that there might be a better life, you may believe it. Don't be complacent about "OK" when "better" is within reach.

He also parroted many of the justifications for government, as well as some of the half-hearted criticisms that are common. Such as "they" want to destroy our freedom, and government protects "us" from "them".

Government and its actions are the only credible threat to our liberties. The US government and its local co-conspirators are the only force "that may want to alter or change the way we are allowed to live and the freedoms we enjoy" (and, they have in fact done so relentlessly); not Arabic goat herders living in caves.

Without a government to "take over" it is useless to even invade a country. Invaders, even if they win the war, need a centralized government and its bureaucracies already in place which they can then co-opt in order to "take over" the country. Having a government puts "us" at risk. It is the same with home-grown socialistic politicians. Remove the legitimacy that they seek through a "vote" and they are no danger to America any more.

Democracy is the opposite of Liberty, for the very reasons he outlined. No group has more rights than any individual because rights are not additive. They are individual. As long as a person is not attacking the innocent nor stealing or defrauding no one has any right (or authority) to tell them how to live their life.

Government education, and the "dumbing down" he also spoke of, is another example. It is not an accident, but by design. Statists need people to believe what "the authorities" tell them, and not be smart enough to figure out the truth.

As you go about your life, whether in Albuquerque NM, Meshoppen PA, or anywhere else in America, remember that this is how most people have been brainwashed to think about America, government, and "freedom".

From Loss to Activism

I was just sitting around today thinking about how I went from a quietly "anti-government" individual to a somewhat outspoken advocate of individual liberty.

It is an evolution I would like to share with you.

All my life I have been characterized by those who knew me as "anti-government". I didn't make an issue of it, but I wouldn't always keep my mouth shut when confronted by "governmentism", either. Mostly I just went about my own business of living as free as I could and kept my opinion to myself unless pressed.

An acquaintance (who later went into government "work") once informed me that I was "conservative" because I did not like or trust government "solutions". For years I accepted this without really examining his contention. I did keep noticing that "conservatives" acted no differently than the "liberals" once elected. They were just as quick as the "other side" to stab me in the back with their every action. This kept me confused for several years. My observation eventually made me forget about looking for solutions from any political party or politician. Once again I was content to ignore the world of politics, except when a new "law" injured liberty in some way that I noticed. I would be irritated, but not surprised. Through it all, and involved in my own little world, I stayed quiet. My attitude was "Who would listen to me anyway?"

That all changed in late December 2003. Without going into gritty details, my life (which was already barely balanced on a worn tightrope) fell apart when my Significant Other left me. At this point I had nothing left to lose. In my grief I jumped feet-first into the first online libertarian group I ran across. I had already found L. Neil Smith's book "Lever Action", which put a label on my deep-seated sentiments, a couple of years before. The internet allowed me to find, and interact with, people who felt the same basic way about individual liberty that I did. It made me feel somewhat less alone and lost.

For a few years I tried to hang on to my anonymity, until my presidential campaign made that impossible. Now I am "out". I am no longer anonymous, and am easily found. I am "on record" with a lot of very unpopular statements and opinions.

If I could change the past, would I? I don't know. Some days, I know I would. Other days, I think I might not.

The remaining chapters are yet to be written. I would love to live out my life unmolested by agents of hatred and "governmentism". Maybe I will; maybe I won't. I hope that from my own heartache I have contributed something to the discourse concerning liberty. At least, in that way, it wasn't suffered in vain.

Joe Stack's kamikaze mission to the IRS

Joe Stack's kamikaze mission to the IRS

By now everyone has heard of Joe Stack and his kamikaze mission to the IRS. So much has been said and there is little I can add. The thing that has surprised me is that most of the commentary I have read has been in at least partial support of his actions. I never expected that.

I can understand the sentiment. The IRS is an agency established solely to conduct theft and fraud against innocent people on behalf of an illegitimate, coercive "government". Dealing with the IRS can be very frustrating for the average person because these thieves are backed by the armed agents of government and keep getting away with their fraud and aggression, case after case, decade after decade. There can be no "justice" when the courts are owned by the same thugs who direct the IRS. There comes a point where a person recognizes they can not act in a civilized manner and expect to come out ahead, or even in a draw. The option of simply agreeing to disagree is not available. Not only that, but the simple act of initially standing up for what is right marks a person as a target for "official" harassment and intimidation for the rest of his life.
Some people, when subjected to this kind of pressure, snap.

An act like this is unequivocally wrong. There is a chance that innocent people could have been in the building, and "collateral damage" is always wrong, whether committed by government agents or by freelance aggressors like Mr. Stack. It is what makes "us" different, and better than, "them".

I read a comment posted elsewhere that claimed that Joe might have been justified in his actions, except for the fact that "the IRS doesn't kill people over unpaid taxes". Really? If you think the IRS doesn't kill people over "unpaid taxes" I have a lot of examples I could point you to. If you are interested in correcting this misconception, you might be interested in reading "The penalty is always death." But Joe wasn't face to face with his attackers when he struck. To me, that makes a world of difference.

Reading over Joe's "manifesto" I can't honestly tell for sure if he had ever been a friend of Liberty. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Especially when they just don't seem to get the fact that there is no excuse for ever turning your back on the Zero Aggression Principle. I can't help but wonder; if he had been my friend, could I have gotten through to him and made him see things in a different perspective?

The 'Sleep it off' bill

The 'Sleep it off' bill

The passed-out-drunk Albuquerque LEO should have waited a while. He and the deputy who gave him "Only One" treatment might have avoided a lot of trouble if they had waited until Senate Bill 151 passes.

The bill would once again make it "legal" for a drunk person to "sleep it off" in their parked car. Rational people have already pointed out that this is the responsible thing to do when you realize you are not sober enough to drive, but the current "law" makes it seem better to take the chance to get home rather than risk the almost certain fate of being arrested for recognizing you shouldn't be driving. After all, a sleeping person is a stationary target.

The bill would also stop LEOs from "arresting" people who are "under the 'legal' limit". Obviously, they shouldn't be doing that anyway. If they had any sense, that is. It is sad that people think there is a need to pass a "law" to stop LEOs from doing something that is already wrong for them to do. LEOs should discover the difference between right and wrong on their own. I know. It won't happen; they are too far gone.

As I have advocated before, the solution to this manufactured problem is to abolish the counterfeit "laws" that make this new "law" seem necessary. "Potential to cause harm" doesn't pass muster. No harm; no victim; no crime.