Government- to keep us safe. Or not.
I really do enjoy the Stossel show. Not that I always agree with him, but he is still a breath of fresh air compared to most things I see on television. He makes me examine my principles.
One thing which he mentions on many of his shows sticks out as particularly silly, though. John Stossel wants government to "keep us safe". From what, exactly? And, how?
I want my microwave oven to change glass cookware into gold, too, but it just isn't possible. It isn't within the realm of reality, no matter how much I wish it were.
That statement about government "keeping us safe" is easily the most inconsistent thing I hear Mr. Stossel say. It is how he keeps himself from sounding like an anarchist like me. It is the anchor he grasps to keep himself from being completely consistent in his libertarianism. He is not the only person I have heard make a similar statement, either. When I run into statements like this a few times from varied sources I tend to stop to consider them and see where that consideration leads.
Now, while consistency doesn't guarantee you are right, inconsistency does guarantee you are wrong about something, somewhere.
Let me make this perfectly clear: I do not believe government can keep me safe, since I know the most credible threat to my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (or if you prefer the original wording- "life, liberty, and property") is government. Yet, even if I believed it possible for government to "keep me safe" I would not want government to do that. My "safety" is not worth violating the rights of others to "ensure", and I realize that violating the rights of other people, in the long run, makes me less safe anyway. My safety does not depend on stealing money from others in order to finance government programs or agencies. My safety does not depend on criminalizing the voluntary, consensual behavior of self-responsible people around me. Those who are not self-responsible are outside the realm of government control anyway, and are best dealt with however you need to when they reveal themselves. If I am attacked I am capable of protecting myself without stealing or violating anyone's rights. Government is absolutely incapable of that.
Am I more safe because government tries to illegally regulate firearms and self defense? No.
Am I more safe because government invades other countries and creates a new generation of people who hate the US government (and mistake Americans for that government) so much that they willingly die in order to kill a few Americans? Hardly!
Am I safer because the government enforces a national border, kills people over plants, chemicals, money, seat belts, sex, and a multitude of other things? No. I am measurably less safe because of the existence of that government.
So, John, what are you thinking when you claim you want government to keep us safe? Are you doing this out of fear of being thought "unreasonable"? Or have you really not given the matter enough thought to realize you are dreaming the impossible dream?
__________________________
Here's a bit of shiny good news. Yet, this dead monster's illegitimate offspring continues to be misused in Albuquerque when an unarmed man on the old courthouse roof "required" an eleven hour SWAT team response. This puts the lie to the "justification" for these militarized anti-liberty forces. So, do you "feel safer"?
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Statism is a religion
 |
| And it's the same all over the world, with their own local versions of the same things. |
Statism, the belief that "government" is a legitimate human endeavor, is a religion. The most widespread human religion of all. It is a matter of faith to its followers and questioning the precepts is seen as an act of war. Those outside the religion see it for the ridiculous and harmful myth it really is.
The statist's god, or one of them, is the State. It is not an exclusive religion since you can belong to other religions as well. Most other religions are no real threat since they reinforce Statism rather than challenging it, ignoring the fact that the State requires you have no gods above it.
Statism makes the claim that since the State makes the rules- defines the "sins", if you will- the State can do things that would be evil if done by you or me, yet maintain its holiness in the eyes of its followers. While individual priests of Statism (politicians and state apologists) can sin, the State as a concept remains unquestioned, as does its sacredness.
Since the State writes the Commandments, the State exempts itself as being above them. The State forbids you to murder, but the State can murder many orders of magnitude more victims than Ted Bundy did. And the statists approve. The State forbids you to kidnap, but the State can kidnap, especially those who dare to reject the religion. Once again, the statists cheer. The State forbids you to steal, but the State can steal, and kidnap or murder you if you resist. And the statists insist you must cooperate and enthusiastically blame you for your own destruction if you do not.
The State can do just about anything as long as the State makes the required adjustments to its followers' morality first. It does this by passing "laws". As long as State actions have been "legalized" by the State, they are assumed to be "right" by those who don't see through the smoke and mirrors. As long as the State gets to decide whether its own actions are wrong, its actions will be judged, by itself, as "just".
I am glad to be an "astatist".
_____________________
And, in Albuquerque news, a sheriff's deputy shot and killed a man who was supposedly threatening suicide. Suicide is a right, although an unpopular one. For LEOs to intervene, and then decide he is a "deadly threat" to the deputies (who are where they have no right to be) and kill the "suicidal" object of their unwanted attention, is twisted and wrong. The person who called the LEOs should be ashamed, but obviously being a follower of the Statist religion, the person is probably proud of himself for doing "the right thing". The priests of Statism will agree.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Government substitutes for attentiveness
Government substitutes for attentiveness
Bernalillo County Commissioner Art De La Cruz wants to put a barrier- a concrete wall- along an Albuquerque bike path in order to protect bicyclists from out-of-control cars. This desire is prompted by a recent tragedy- a bike rider was hit and killed by a car that ran off the road and into the bike path.
Look, life will never be "safe". No matter how many "barriers", warning signs, bubble wrap, or "laws" you hem people in with, there will still always be accidents and deaths. It is human to be moved by tragedies and want to "do something"; it is perverse to think that you can make life better by trying to "fix" every single possibility of a tragedy. Unfortunate Truth #6 states "Any solved problem creates new problems". To spend money taken at gun point on your illusory "fixes", creating a slew of new problems, borders on sociopathic.
Bike riders know that when you ride near cars, there is always danger. As the operator of the smaller vehicle, it is my responsibility as the bike rider to stay alert and watch out for myself. Nothing can replace that.
Bernalillo County Commissioner Art De La Cruz wants to put a barrier- a concrete wall- along an Albuquerque bike path in order to protect bicyclists from out-of-control cars. This desire is prompted by a recent tragedy- a bike rider was hit and killed by a car that ran off the road and into the bike path.
Look, life will never be "safe". No matter how many "barriers", warning signs, bubble wrap, or "laws" you hem people in with, there will still always be accidents and deaths. It is human to be moved by tragedies and want to "do something"; it is perverse to think that you can make life better by trying to "fix" every single possibility of a tragedy. Unfortunate Truth #6 states "Any solved problem creates new problems". To spend money taken at gun point on your illusory "fixes", creating a slew of new problems, borders on sociopathic.
Bike riders know that when you ride near cars, there is always danger. As the operator of the smaller vehicle, it is my responsibility as the bike rider to stay alert and watch out for myself. Nothing can replace that.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Unlibertarian libertarians
Unlibertarian libertarians
This past weekend I watched the show "Stossel" on FOX Business News. I really like the show, and recommend you watch it if you can. John Stossel still has a ways to go before clearing out the last few cherished government myths he holds to, but he is on his way.
John Stossel's subject on this most recent show was "Libertarians", and what "libertarianism" means. I enjoyed watching the guests debate their various "libertarian" views, but one thing kept coming to mind: a person (or idea) is only "libertarian"* as long as he (or it) adheres to the principles of libertarianism. Where one departs from those principles, for any reason, one is not "libertarian". Any person may hold some libertarian ideas, and even the most "libertarian" of us may harbor some ideas that fail to be libertarian. Just because someone calls themselves "libertarian" (or anything else), it does not mean that all their notions are consistent with the principles that they claim. Test and examine each position. Some of his guests on that show were so far off base on some subjects as to be absurd, yet they didn't see it in themselves.
Libertarianism is the most consistent philosophy of human interaction thus far teased out of the fabric of the Universe. It is the most kind to each individual human and is the most rational guiding principle there is. If something were ever found that contradicts it, the philosophy would need to be modified and adjusted. So far nothing like this has ever shown up. Criticisms of libertarianism all inevitably fail due to internal inconsistencies. Usually involving misunderstandings of "initiation of force" or by making exceptions to "the rules" for those who wear the silly hat of government. Look into the criticisms closely and you will see how easily they can be discounted as the protests of people who want to be able to use coercion against innocent people for some reason of their own.
Libertarianism can be used as a lens through which to view all human interactions, such as all those involved in politics and religion. Where those interactions clash with the principles of libertarianism they show their flaws and failures. They have shown where they are wrong.
Let's pretend there were a situation discovered where the use of coercion was the only correct and ethical course of action. It would be inconsistent for a libertarian to endorse this, even if it were correct. In that particular case the "libertarian position" would be wrong. A person could advocate coercion in that case and be right, but by doing so would not be "libertarian" in that specific area. Fortunately, this is a fantasy mental exercise, like debating what color the crest feathers of unknown feathered mammals would be.
Libertarianism is just as right as the laws of physics are immutable. It is just a reality of the behavior of a decent person. Some people don't like to have this pointed out. I fully expect to upset some people who like their own particular use of coercion. Yet, I don't expect any clear refutation; just mumbo-jumbo and possibly even carefully crafted, intentionally obscure, "justifications" and exceptions that serve an aggressive agenda.
Libertarianism is strength. It gives you the power and principles to deal with anything that might come up. All you need to do is apply what you know, in spite of protests of the statists. Life and its uncertainty ensure that not everything will always work out the way you want. Nothing can ever ensure perfection. It is still the best way to live.
*Particularly important link explaining what libertarianism (another, different, link) is, and why it is the same as pure anarchism.
***********************
This past weekend I watched the show "Stossel" on FOX Business News. I really like the show, and recommend you watch it if you can. John Stossel still has a ways to go before clearing out the last few cherished government myths he holds to, but he is on his way.
John Stossel's subject on this most recent show was "Libertarians", and what "libertarianism" means. I enjoyed watching the guests debate their various "libertarian" views, but one thing kept coming to mind: a person (or idea) is only "libertarian"* as long as he (or it) adheres to the principles of libertarianism. Where one departs from those principles, for any reason, one is not "libertarian". Any person may hold some libertarian ideas, and even the most "libertarian" of us may harbor some ideas that fail to be libertarian. Just because someone calls themselves "libertarian" (or anything else), it does not mean that all their notions are consistent with the principles that they claim. Test and examine each position. Some of his guests on that show were so far off base on some subjects as to be absurd, yet they didn't see it in themselves.
Libertarianism is the most consistent philosophy of human interaction thus far teased out of the fabric of the Universe. It is the most kind to each individual human and is the most rational guiding principle there is. If something were ever found that contradicts it, the philosophy would need to be modified and adjusted. So far nothing like this has ever shown up. Criticisms of libertarianism all inevitably fail due to internal inconsistencies. Usually involving misunderstandings of "initiation of force" or by making exceptions to "the rules" for those who wear the silly hat of government. Look into the criticisms closely and you will see how easily they can be discounted as the protests of people who want to be able to use coercion against innocent people for some reason of their own.
Libertarianism can be used as a lens through which to view all human interactions, such as all those involved in politics and religion. Where those interactions clash with the principles of libertarianism they show their flaws and failures. They have shown where they are wrong.
Let's pretend there were a situation discovered where the use of coercion was the only correct and ethical course of action. It would be inconsistent for a libertarian to endorse this, even if it were correct. In that particular case the "libertarian position" would be wrong. A person could advocate coercion in that case and be right, but by doing so would not be "libertarian" in that specific area. Fortunately, this is a fantasy mental exercise, like debating what color the crest feathers of unknown feathered mammals would be.
Libertarianism is just as right as the laws of physics are immutable. It is just a reality of the behavior of a decent person. Some people don't like to have this pointed out. I fully expect to upset some people who like their own particular use of coercion. Yet, I don't expect any clear refutation; just mumbo-jumbo and possibly even carefully crafted, intentionally obscure, "justifications" and exceptions that serve an aggressive agenda.
Libertarianism is strength. It gives you the power and principles to deal with anything that might come up. All you need to do is apply what you know, in spite of protests of the statists. Life and its uncertainty ensure that not everything will always work out the way you want. Nothing can ever ensure perfection. It is still the best way to live.
*Particularly important link explaining what libertarianism (another, different, link) is, and why it is the same as pure anarchism.
***********************
Monday, April 12, 2010
Coercion vs initiation of force
Coercion vs initiation of force
A comment a while back on this column led to a google group where that particular column was critiqued. I don't really have the spare time to get involved in any new discussion groups so I will address the comments here and also post this column there, where I was invited to participate.
For the time being I will focus on one particular disagreement the author, Paul Wakfer, had with my assertion that it is always wrong to use coercion. He says:
"Yes it is wrong to use government since the State is ultimately nothing but the use of physical force against others without their Permission in order to steal their Property and/or reduce their Liberty." ... "However that does not mean that coercion per se is always wrong - eg. use of physical force to stop a child from running into the street or to prevent an unwary adult from stepping out in front of an oncoming car, without hir (sic) permission ahead of its use."
I notice a bait and switch. Using physical force to stop a child from running into the street is an "initiation of force", but it is not "coercion". You can coerce without using any force at all; using only words, guilt, threats, or other forms of manipulation. Coercion is still always wrong.
Initiation of force may sometimes be necessary but you must always understand you have NO RIGHT to initiate force. You can be held accountable for your initiation of force, even if you did it with the best of intentions. You must accept that you have stepped outside exercising your rights into violating his, and you must accept any consequences your actions bring.
Sometimes when you feel you must initiate force you can be forgiven by your victim, such as in the case of the person about to step in front of a bus. You do not have time to gather all the necessary information before you act. This is why it is not a "fallacy", as he claims, even though it can be complicated by circumstances. If the person protests your "protective" actions, yet you persist in shoving him out of the way, you have gone from simply initiating force to actually using coercion to remove him from the bus' path. If the person wanted to step in front of the bus (suicide is a basic right, even if distasteful), then you might owe him restitution.
Of course, when he steps in front of the bus he would be initiating force upon the passengers of the bus and causing damage to property that is not his own. Your debt to him could be nullified by your prevention of his initiation of force and resultant property destruction. This is something to have in mind all the time. To me, it is usually worth the risk, but I do understand where my rights end and his begin. You do what you feel you must and accept any consequences of your actions.
Mr. Wakfer also addresses the notion that the parent "is the effective Owner of [a] child", and that this gives the parent the authority to stop a child from running into the street. I do not believe a parent owns the child. The child may be your responsibility, but to "own" something gives you the right to destroy it. You do not have that right with regards to "your" child. To stop a child from running into the street is exercising your obligation to protect that child when possible.
Why is it OK to protect a child using force, but not OK for the State to protect me by using force? Mostly because I do not consent to being "protected", nor do I need anyone's "protection" (especially when it comes at the cost of other people's money and liberty). The child lacks a fully-developed mind that would be capable of understanding cause and effect and lacks experience in the everyday laws of physics. It is sometimes hard to see the difference between legitimately protecting the child and controlling him. The distinction still exists whether you see it or not. Someday the world will be free enough to make this type of discussion important.
Feel free to visit the group to read the rest of the critique. I may address more of his points later.
********************
A comment a while back on this column led to a google group where that particular column was critiqued. I don't really have the spare time to get involved in any new discussion groups so I will address the comments here and also post this column there, where I was invited to participate.
For the time being I will focus on one particular disagreement the author, Paul Wakfer, had with my assertion that it is always wrong to use coercion. He says:
"Yes it is wrong to use government since the State is ultimately nothing but the use of physical force against others without their Permission in order to steal their Property and/or reduce their Liberty." ... "However that does not mean that coercion per se is always wrong - eg. use of physical force to stop a child from running into the street or to prevent an unwary adult from stepping out in front of an oncoming car, without hir (sic) permission ahead of its use."
I notice a bait and switch. Using physical force to stop a child from running into the street is an "initiation of force", but it is not "coercion". You can coerce without using any force at all; using only words, guilt, threats, or other forms of manipulation. Coercion is still always wrong.
Initiation of force may sometimes be necessary but you must always understand you have NO RIGHT to initiate force. You can be held accountable for your initiation of force, even if you did it with the best of intentions. You must accept that you have stepped outside exercising your rights into violating his, and you must accept any consequences your actions bring.
Sometimes when you feel you must initiate force you can be forgiven by your victim, such as in the case of the person about to step in front of a bus. You do not have time to gather all the necessary information before you act. This is why it is not a "fallacy", as he claims, even though it can be complicated by circumstances. If the person protests your "protective" actions, yet you persist in shoving him out of the way, you have gone from simply initiating force to actually using coercion to remove him from the bus' path. If the person wanted to step in front of the bus (suicide is a basic right, even if distasteful), then you might owe him restitution.
Of course, when he steps in front of the bus he would be initiating force upon the passengers of the bus and causing damage to property that is not his own. Your debt to him could be nullified by your prevention of his initiation of force and resultant property destruction. This is something to have in mind all the time. To me, it is usually worth the risk, but I do understand where my rights end and his begin. You do what you feel you must and accept any consequences of your actions.
Mr. Wakfer also addresses the notion that the parent "is the effective Owner of [a] child", and that this gives the parent the authority to stop a child from running into the street. I do not believe a parent owns the child. The child may be your responsibility, but to "own" something gives you the right to destroy it. You do not have that right with regards to "your" child. To stop a child from running into the street is exercising your obligation to protect that child when possible.
Why is it OK to protect a child using force, but not OK for the State to protect me by using force? Mostly because I do not consent to being "protected", nor do I need anyone's "protection" (especially when it comes at the cost of other people's money and liberty). The child lacks a fully-developed mind that would be capable of understanding cause and effect and lacks experience in the everyday laws of physics. It is sometimes hard to see the difference between legitimately protecting the child and controlling him. The distinction still exists whether you see it or not. Someday the world will be free enough to make this type of discussion important.
Feel free to visit the group to read the rest of the critique. I may address more of his points later.
********************
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Financing your 'pet projects'
Financing your 'pet projects'
I love books. I like libraries. Most libraries happen to be financed through theft of one sort or another. I would rather give up libraries than force people who do not value them to financially support the library. It's a matter of principle.
If a library is a good thing to have, as I believe it to be, I would be willing to pay a fee for each book I take home. Or buy an annual membership. If that isn't enough to keep the library going I might be disappointed but it would be wrong of me to claim the authority to steal money from you in order to finance something I like.
This brings to mind the mention I recently made of the Albuquerque Balloon Museum, and the crooked ABQ mayor's extortion attempts using the museum as his hostage.
If the market won't support a particular program or endeavor why can't it's supporters ante up and support it themselves? After all, they are the ones claiming a value for their pet project. Prove your sincerity. Charity has a long and honorable history. If money runs short, find a better way that costs less. If they who value the project can't afford to keep it going, it's probably not really worth doing.
It's like asking anti-war types to pay the military to kill journalists and children in other countries, or asking religious conservatives to pay for abortions. If you wish to support something with your own money, I should not be able to stop you, although you should be held accountable for any harm you cause, but if you want to support something I am ethically opposed to you have no claim on my money to use for your purposes. The same goes for me and my likes. Me wanting something does not obligate you to help provide it for me.
I love books. I like libraries. Most libraries happen to be financed through theft of one sort or another. I would rather give up libraries than force people who do not value them to financially support the library. It's a matter of principle.
If a library is a good thing to have, as I believe it to be, I would be willing to pay a fee for each book I take home. Or buy an annual membership. If that isn't enough to keep the library going I might be disappointed but it would be wrong of me to claim the authority to steal money from you in order to finance something I like.
This brings to mind the mention I recently made of the Albuquerque Balloon Museum, and the crooked ABQ mayor's extortion attempts using the museum as his hostage.
If the market won't support a particular program or endeavor why can't it's supporters ante up and support it themselves? After all, they are the ones claiming a value for their pet project. Prove your sincerity. Charity has a long and honorable history. If money runs short, find a better way that costs less. If they who value the project can't afford to keep it going, it's probably not really worth doing.
It's like asking anti-war types to pay the military to kill journalists and children in other countries, or asking religious conservatives to pay for abortions. If you wish to support something with your own money, I should not be able to stop you, although you should be held accountable for any harm you cause, but if you want to support something I am ethically opposed to you have no claim on my money to use for your purposes. The same goes for me and my likes. Me wanting something does not obligate you to help provide it for me.
Friday, April 09, 2010
A casualty of the 'War on Sex' or of the "War on Capitalism'?
A casualty of the 'War on Sex' or of the "War on Capitalism'?
Another person who apparently initiated force against no one and likewise defrauded no one is being ordered to hand himself over to kidnappers to live as their slave for the next several years. Dr. Ross Levatter's crime? Investing his money in a "prostitution ring" that operated in Albuquerque.
Those who sell their bodies and minds to the State, in order to help direct the force of the state at any who get in their way, penalize those who rent their bodies to other individuals on a consensual basis, and also penalize those who dare to work with them. Maybe out of jealousy because the "State-property" understands just who is the better person.
As George Carlin once said, and I must paraphrase here, if "selling" is legal and sex is legal, why isn't selling sex legal? The answer is that there is no good reason.
This isn't to say that if coercion is used to recruit prostitutes, that is OK. It is not. Leave the hypocrisy to the statists. Don't pretend to know everything about a person's reasons for choosing their job. Maybe they enjoy making people happy, and earning money by doing so. Maybe they don't believe in the same "moral guidelines" as you. As long as they are behaving ethically (no force; no fraud) it is none of your business. If they do use force and fraud (as do those who work for the state), then they have made it the business of everyone who knows right from wrong.
Another person who apparently initiated force against no one and likewise defrauded no one is being ordered to hand himself over to kidnappers to live as their slave for the next several years. Dr. Ross Levatter's crime? Investing his money in a "prostitution ring" that operated in Albuquerque.
Those who sell their bodies and minds to the State, in order to help direct the force of the state at any who get in their way, penalize those who rent their bodies to other individuals on a consensual basis, and also penalize those who dare to work with them. Maybe out of jealousy because the "State-property" understands just who is the better person.
As George Carlin once said, and I must paraphrase here, if "selling" is legal and sex is legal, why isn't selling sex legal? The answer is that there is no good reason.
This isn't to say that if coercion is used to recruit prostitutes, that is OK. It is not. Leave the hypocrisy to the statists. Don't pretend to know everything about a person's reasons for choosing their job. Maybe they enjoy making people happy, and earning money by doing so. Maybe they don't believe in the same "moral guidelines" as you. As long as they are behaving ethically (no force; no fraud) it is none of your business. If they do use force and fraud (as do those who work for the state), then they have made it the business of everyone who knows right from wrong.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Statism: the foulest bigotry
Statism: the foulest bigotry
Bigotry involves thinking you are better than someone else. Which, in a way is obviously true. You are better than some people, and some other people are better than you, or me. The only real measure of "better" involves how you interact with others. Do you aggress against or defraud them? If so, they are better than you. This is one pitfall of statism- by embracing it you elevate your opposition to a position above you, ethically.
All people are not "equal" in the commonly misunderstood way, but everyone does have the exact same rights. It doesn't matter where they were born, what religion they practice, how much melanin is in their skin, how intelligent they are, or what condition their body is in. Their rights are fully intact and identical to the rights of every other person alive. Bigotry refuses to recognize that.
Albuquerque is a big place with a rich history that involves several different ethnic and cultural groups. It wouldn't be the same, like a puzzle missing a piece, if someone is marginalized because of their differences. There is room for everyone as long as no one uses coercion to impose themselves on others. There is no justification for bigotry.
Statism is another form of bigotry, and is just as wrong as all the others. But statism is aimed at everyone else, rather than some particular "out group". It is an exceptionally selfish bigotry. It asserts that "I am OK, but everyone else needs to be controlled". The State, coercive external government, is the result of this bigotry. Its existence diminishes us all. Statism is the most dangerous type of bigotry because it becomes enshrined in "law" and backed by the threat of death if you refuse to accept and live by it.
But, remember to keep your chin up. Don't fall for the bigotry of statism (or any other kind). We good people outnumber the bad, or civilization would collapse. We are everywhere.
*******************
Bigotry involves thinking you are better than someone else. Which, in a way is obviously true. You are better than some people, and some other people are better than you, or me. The only real measure of "better" involves how you interact with others. Do you aggress against or defraud them? If so, they are better than you. This is one pitfall of statism- by embracing it you elevate your opposition to a position above you, ethically.
All people are not "equal" in the commonly misunderstood way, but everyone does have the exact same rights. It doesn't matter where they were born, what religion they practice, how much melanin is in their skin, how intelligent they are, or what condition their body is in. Their rights are fully intact and identical to the rights of every other person alive. Bigotry refuses to recognize that.
Albuquerque is a big place with a rich history that involves several different ethnic and cultural groups. It wouldn't be the same, like a puzzle missing a piece, if someone is marginalized because of their differences. There is room for everyone as long as no one uses coercion to impose themselves on others. There is no justification for bigotry.
Statism is another form of bigotry, and is just as wrong as all the others. But statism is aimed at everyone else, rather than some particular "out group". It is an exceptionally selfish bigotry. It asserts that "I am OK, but everyone else needs to be controlled". The State, coercive external government, is the result of this bigotry. Its existence diminishes us all. Statism is the most dangerous type of bigotry because it becomes enshrined in "law" and backed by the threat of death if you refuse to accept and live by it.
But, remember to keep your chin up. Don't fall for the bigotry of statism (or any other kind). We good people outnumber the bad, or civilization would collapse. We are everywhere.
*******************
Police chase ends in innocent deaths
Police chase ends in innocent deaths
Some things are just so sad and pointless that there is little you can say.
Such as the Albuquerque bank robber who crashed and killed two innocent women during a police chase Tuesday morning. Explain to me: How is this outcome "better"?
Is there really no way to catch robbers other than putting innocent people, their lives and liberty, at risk? As long as you are going to tolerate swarms of LEOs driving around the city (I have seen them with my own eyes), is it not possible to track and watch an escaping robber instead of causing him to panic and flee at high speed? Is it really more dangerous to allow bank employees and customers to be armed so these things can be stopped before they escalate?
This is what "give them what they want" leads to.
"Collateral damage" is never acceptable. Not in Afghanistan or Iraq, and not on the streets of ABQ.
*************************
Some things are just so sad and pointless that there is little you can say.
Such as the Albuquerque bank robber who crashed and killed two innocent women during a police chase Tuesday morning. Explain to me: How is this outcome "better"?
Is there really no way to catch robbers other than putting innocent people, their lives and liberty, at risk? As long as you are going to tolerate swarms of LEOs driving around the city (I have seen them with my own eyes), is it not possible to track and watch an escaping robber instead of causing him to panic and flee at high speed? Is it really more dangerous to allow bank employees and customers to be armed so these things can be stopped before they escalate?
This is what "give them what they want" leads to.
"Collateral damage" is never acceptable. Not in Afghanistan or Iraq, and not on the streets of ABQ.
*************************
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
A dangerous idea whose time has come
A dangerous idea whose time has come
The idea that coercive government is destructive to civilization is a dangerous idea. Not because it is wrong, but because it is demonstrably right. It is dangerous to those who depend on having the appearance of legitimacy as they do things as "government", backed up by the guns of government, that they would be killed for doing individually.
Few people would shrug their shoulders and allow freelance thieves steal 88% of their wealth, yet this is the approximate amount lost to government at all levels, through taxation, regulation, fees, and every other way government takes money and destroys productivity. I awakened to that truth; I am confident anyone can.
Few people would stand aside while nosy neighbors demanded to control what you eat or otherwise ingest. Yet, put the silly hat of government on that nosy neighbor and we accept the meddling of the FDA and the DEA. We even look away as they kill people who don't submit to the meddling.
Few people would submit to having their houses stolen by an armed gang, and given to those who bought the armed gang their weaponry and cars. Yet, call it "eminent domain" and it happens all the time, and those who protest are considered "extremists".
Few people are delusional enough to believe that their food can only be provided by forcing others to give it to them, yet many fall for the same delusion about their safety. Anything needed can be purchased or made at home, and if it must be stolen from others in order for you to have it, it is not "necessary".
The examples are almost endless.
Government, as it is commonly thought of, is not only a destructive gang, it is a tragically unnecessary one as well. The acknowledgment of that fact should not be dangerous. It should be self-evident.
__________________________
Albuquerque mayor Berry is using a tried and true extortion method common to politicians: threatening a popular "tax"-supported item, the Albuquerque Balloon Museum, to try to get people to give up more of their money to his kind. Disgusting and predictable tactic, Mayor. You have shown your true sleazy colors.
Politicians and bureaucrats should be the first on the chopping block when budgets run short. LEOs and other unnecessary burdens should be right behind them. And, instead of trying to emotionally manipulate ("emotionipulate"?) "tax cows" into handing over more loot, museums (and everything else) should be privatized rather than used as hostages.
The balloon museum should be offered for sale. Cities should "own" nothing. If the museum is popular and wanted, it will be purchased, it will survive, and it will make its new (and likely smarter) owners a profit. If not, vaya con Dios.
The idea that coercive government is destructive to civilization is a dangerous idea. Not because it is wrong, but because it is demonstrably right. It is dangerous to those who depend on having the appearance of legitimacy as they do things as "government", backed up by the guns of government, that they would be killed for doing individually.
Few people would shrug their shoulders and allow freelance thieves steal 88% of their wealth, yet this is the approximate amount lost to government at all levels, through taxation, regulation, fees, and every other way government takes money and destroys productivity. I awakened to that truth; I am confident anyone can.
Few people would stand aside while nosy neighbors demanded to control what you eat or otherwise ingest. Yet, put the silly hat of government on that nosy neighbor and we accept the meddling of the FDA and the DEA. We even look away as they kill people who don't submit to the meddling.
Few people would submit to having their houses stolen by an armed gang, and given to those who bought the armed gang their weaponry and cars. Yet, call it "eminent domain" and it happens all the time, and those who protest are considered "extremists".
Few people are delusional enough to believe that their food can only be provided by forcing others to give it to them, yet many fall for the same delusion about their safety. Anything needed can be purchased or made at home, and if it must be stolen from others in order for you to have it, it is not "necessary".
The examples are almost endless.
Government, as it is commonly thought of, is not only a destructive gang, it is a tragically unnecessary one as well. The acknowledgment of that fact should not be dangerous. It should be self-evident.
__________________________
Albuquerque mayor Berry is using a tried and true extortion method common to politicians: threatening a popular "tax"-supported item, the Albuquerque Balloon Museum, to try to get people to give up more of their money to his kind. Disgusting and predictable tactic, Mayor. You have shown your true sleazy colors.
Politicians and bureaucrats should be the first on the chopping block when budgets run short. LEOs and other unnecessary burdens should be right behind them. And, instead of trying to emotionally manipulate ("emotionipulate"?) "tax cows" into handing over more loot, museums (and everything else) should be privatized rather than used as hostages.
The balloon museum should be offered for sale. Cities should "own" nothing. If the museum is popular and wanted, it will be purchased, it will survive, and it will make its new (and likely smarter) owners a profit. If not, vaya con Dios.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
'Dial 911 and die' demonstrated once again
'Dial 911 and die' demonstrated once again
An Albuquerque woman has died after calling 911. Murdered. Her boyfriend has confessed and has been arrested. The cops showed up to look at her corpse. I'm sure her family and friends find that a comfort.
I can't emphasize this enough: Do not depend on anyone else for your protection. Never, never, never! Your safety is YOUR responsibility. Anyone who tries to make you believe otherwise is your mortal enemy, no matter whether they be cops, "friends", peers, the president, the media, your preacher, or ignorant activists. They would all rather see you dead than alive due to your use of an effective self-defense tool.
The LEOs may not have directly killed her in this case, but they were worse than useless in protecting her. In as much as the official LEO line is that self-defense is a slightly disreputable endeavor and you should let the professionals "take care of" you, they have blood on their hands- as long as they arrest or harass even one person for being armed without official permission they are a major part of the problem and a barrier to the solution.
You may think I harp on this subject. I assure you I do not spend enough time on it. Depending on government, or any of its agents, for your safety or survival is suicidal. If only she had realized that, the situation might have turned out better.
An Albuquerque woman has died after calling 911. Murdered. Her boyfriend has confessed and has been arrested. The cops showed up to look at her corpse. I'm sure her family and friends find that a comfort.
I can't emphasize this enough: Do not depend on anyone else for your protection. Never, never, never! Your safety is YOUR responsibility. Anyone who tries to make you believe otherwise is your mortal enemy, no matter whether they be cops, "friends", peers, the president, the media, your preacher, or ignorant activists. They would all rather see you dead than alive due to your use of an effective self-defense tool.
The LEOs may not have directly killed her in this case, but they were worse than useless in protecting her. In as much as the official LEO line is that self-defense is a slightly disreputable endeavor and you should let the professionals "take care of" you, they have blood on their hands- as long as they arrest or harass even one person for being armed without official permission they are a major part of the problem and a barrier to the solution.
You may think I harp on this subject. I assure you I do not spend enough time on it. Depending on government, or any of its agents, for your safety or survival is suicidal. If only she had realized that, the situation might have turned out better.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Movie review: "making bombs"
This is a review of the imaginary movie, "making bombs". The movie only exists in a dream I had last night. The picture to the side is a crude approximation of the title screen I "saw" as the movie began.The movie is the story of Michael, a television reporter who, in the tradition of firefighters who practice a little arson on the side, sets bombs to go off and then reports on them. The difference is in the "why".
The background for this tale is a civil rights struggle in an alternate reality. One that is not so very different from our own reality.
Liberty is gone, and those who value it are the second-class citizens. Michael is careful to harm no innocents and to destroy no private property with his bombs while he uses them as an excuse to report on the cause of those who are being oppressed. He is a mole for Liberty in the state-run media.
In my head, the movie was very exciting and inspiring, and Michael was a true hero in every sense of the word. Too bad it doesn't really exist.
I can't tell you how the story ends, since I woke up too soon. Maybe it is for each of us to write the ending.
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.
*****************
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.
*****************
Thursday, April 01, 2010
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.
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 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.
****************************
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.
****************************
Thursday, March 25, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 22, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, March 19, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 15, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, March 12, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
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".
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".
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, March 05, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
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.
*********************
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.
*********************
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
'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.
*********************
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.
*********************
Sunday, February 28, 2010
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.
***********************
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.
***********************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)