Rand Paul, racism, and 'libertarianism'

Rand Paul, racism, and 'libertarianism'

The Rand Paul "racism" flap just proves a point. To stupid people, much of libertarianism sounds like it is "not nice". Like the truthful statement I just made in the previous sentence. Yes, I am being a little hyperbolic- possibly.

I don't know if Rand Paul is "libertarian" or not; what little I have heard from him didn't pass the sniff-test for me, but that is what the mainstream media is loudly calling him. And they are using his statement to denigrate all libertarianism. What utter nonsense. Libertarians are the only ones out there who are NOT racist. Mr. Paul's statement wasn't racist in the slightest, either. It was individualist.

Now, maybe it sounds "mean" to allow people to make their own choices and face their own consequences. But how it "sounds" and the reality of the situation are polar opposites. It is the only nice thing you can do. And, if you want to step in and personally, individually, save people from the consequences of some of their own actions, when possible, go right ahead. Just don't use the illegitimate, coercive force of government to impose upon other people to grant your wishes at their own expense.

Was the federal government right to force private businesses to integrate back during the civil rights movement? No. It was a violation of personal property rights and the right of association. People have the right to be wrong, and discrimination based on trivial matters is a prime example of being wrong by exercising a right. If an individual or business discriminates against non-violent, honest people, you and I have a right, maybe even an ethical responsibility, to exercise our own right of association and shun those people and businesses. After all, if it can happen to "them" it could happen to "us".
________________________

The city of Albuquerque is cutting the pay of "its" employees. That's a good first step. The proper pay cut should be 100% for all "city employees". If something needs to be done, the market will fill the niche. More ethically (without relying on theft), more cost-effectively, better, and only if really necessary. Anything less is just dancing around trying to avoid the truth.
Posted using ShareThis

Membership has its privileges- and its pitfalls

Membership has its privileges- and its pitfalls

One notion I run into when people are trying to justify "immigration" control is that of "citizenship gives us rights", and you can't just give those rights to anyone. This is so wrong.

"Citizenship" is like any other membership, it can neither add to your rights, nor take away from them. It can give you privileges in addition to your rights. You can also agree to not exercise some of your rights in exchange for these privileges if you so choose. However, those non-exercised rights remain unequivocally yours, to be called upon whenever you decide, no matter what the membership agreement claims. More on this in a moment.

If you do not explicitly agree to terms of membership, the club has no authorization to automatically force you to be a member simply because of where you were born, nor to demand you not exercise some of your rights in exchange for privileges you don't want.

Even if you agree to the membership, it is not a life sentence for either party.

If you decide at some point that the privileges of the membership are not worth the rights you agreed to not exercise you can unilaterally decide you no longer want the membership. You do not need to ask permission from the club. The club can also revoke your membership, once again unilaterally, if you don't abide by the terms of your membership agreement. It can't then kidnap you, steal your money and other property, or kill you because you are no longer a member. The most the "club" can legitimately do is allow you to go your separate way and stop delivering the privileges.

That doesn't mean "love it or leave it". This doesn't mean you must move to a new location, since the club does not have a claim to your house. Membership requirements only apply to property the club actually owns or to individuals who accept the terms of membership.

Any club that tries to impose beyond its authority is evil. It doesn't matter if it is a "country" or a book club.

I want nothing to do with "citizenship" of any sort. I am a denizen, since I do not agree to the membership agreement terms.
________________________

Albuquerque "authorities" are encouraging the idea that foreclosed and abandoned homes are becoming gang hangouts. The city "has to do something". Some sheeple are asking for more police patrols.

Government caused the problem, more government won't solve it. Government meddling in the housing market has caused a flood of foreclosures. The Federal Reserve's counterfeiting operation is making money lose value. Socialism is destroying jobs. End the stupid and evil "War on (some) Drugs" and pull the rug out from under the gangs. Stop criminalizing self-defense and the effective tools for delivering it. It is a solved problem- the solutions are known- but government refuses to allow the solution to be implemented. Government is a disease pretending to be the cure.

I'm a grandfather

As of 1:45 PM, central time, I became a grandfather. My older daughter gave birth to a healthy boy who weighed 6 pounds, 15 ounces, and was 19 inches long. Is my younger daughter, at the age of 2 3/4, ready for someone to call me "Granddad"? Am I ready?

Wee-hour musings lead to questions

I've recently been wondering something a little strange.

Is it a "crime" to threaten to kill a former president who has already died? Say, if some writer started calling for the assassination of "Murderous Abe" Lincoln, "The American Lenin", would the jackboots show up at his or her door to kidnap the writer?

What if the jackboots were suspicious that the writer was actually referring to a living tyrant instead of the specifically named dead one, in spite of no truth to the suspicion?

It's just a question that has been hanging around in my skull. Nothing sinister here.

I love liberty

I love liberty

Why do I care about liberty? Why do I want it for you just as much as I want it for myself? Because I LOVE liberty, not only for myself, but for everyone. Even if it is inconvenient to me for others to have it. I would rather see my worst enemy living a life of liberty than being "controlled" by the state. Is this crazy? No. It is consistent.

Anything that impacts my enemy's liberty will be just as bad for mine in the long-run. I'd prefer to take my chances in a free society, taking responsibility for my own life, than have empty guarantees from a government that "only" demands I give up "little bits" of my liberty that I'll "probably never miss" anyway.

I want everyone to be able to enjoy liberty- the freedom to exercise all their rights- to the fullest extent they can. Right up to where their rights end and someone else's identical individual rights begin. Think of the potential society is destroying by placing thugs with government guns and a "legal" monopoly to use them, at all the gateways that lead to innovation and real progress.
Liberty leads to better life. Not safer in every case, but better. Fuller, richer, more meaningful. Wider horizons and brighter colors. The sky doesn't even begin to be the limit.

If that life isn't for you, what are your options? Where will you go in a free society? Liberty even makes room for those too afraid of the real world to live "free"; they can choose to have their choices limited by a voluntary arrangement. A "daycare" for people who refuse to accept their responsibilities. You can avoid all contact with the rest of the world so you can be just as safe as you are now if that is your choice. Even safer, in all probability, since you and all your neighbors will be scanned, tagged, watched, and tracked from the moment you sign up.

That's not for me, but it is not my place to tell you how to live. This is why I write about liberty- complete, whole, full liberty. Exceptions destroy liberty for everyone, one piece at a time. I don't buy into the watered-down versions extolled by "conservatives", "progressives", or even some "Libertarians". Liberty is liberty, and if weakened or restricted in any way, it is no longer liberty, but something smaller. Less.

If you are afraid of liberty, or if you don't like it fully-expressed for some reason, that is your business. But don't pretend you are advocating liberty or libertarianism while making excuses for placing limits on the liberty of others. It just doesn't work that way. Liberty is an all-or-nothing proposition. Ending only where you have no right to tread.
___________________________

In Albuquerque news, some tennis players have let their bladders do the talking. Unhappy that Sister Cities Park has no restroom facilities, they allowed themselves get "caught" urinating at the park anyway, to bring attention to their distress. The city spokescritter says they didn't have to go this far; all they had to do was call. Why do I suspect that had already been tried without result?

Just another demonstration that governments can't manage what they claim to own. A privately-owned park would have probably addressed the issue before it came to this. I'm also surprised the urinators were not charged with sex crimes and placed on the "sex offender" list. It has happened before.

Examiner advice request

My Examiner columns have been doing very poorly recently. I'm getting only a fraction of the page views I was getting just a few weeks ago (not counting the "troll attention"). That impacts my motivation to invest the time to write, which may cause a self-destructive feedback loop.

So, I need to ask if I am getting off-track or not touching on subjects that are interesting. Any suggestions (that will keep me within the guidelines Examiner.com) will be considered.

Mayor Berry uses weasel-words to straddle the fence

Mayor Berry uses weasel-words to straddle the fence

Albuquerque Mayor Berry recently said the "immigrant community" (whatever that may be) is welcome in Albuquerque, but criminals are not. So, let's look at that statement and see what he, as a politician, actually means.

Since "criminals" are simply people who do things the government doesn't approve of, whether the things are actually bad (harmful to others; a violation of another person's identical rights) or not, the statement is empty rhetoric of the sort frequently spoken by parasites. Of course a government tool would not want people around who do things that the government doesn't approve of; they don't fit the plan. One of those things is moving to a new place without "official government permission". He can therefore justify, to himself and others without an ethical foundation, kidnapping people his LEOs find who are lacking permission papers.

Now, supposedly this new policy only affects those who have already been kidnapped in connection with other "crimes", but how many government programs ever fail to grow in breadth and depth? How many of these "crimes" involve actions that are within a person's rights to do?

If a person attacks, defrauds, or steals from anyone, they are subject to self-defensive actions, up to and including extermination when caught in the act. Get government out of the way of that basic right and the "illegal immigrant" problem, as well as most other societal problems, will evaporate faster than you can close and raze the now-obsolete government facilities. Where a person was born, or what papers he possesses, has nothing to do with it. And that is why government-lovers will never willingly recognize this basic human right. It takes away their power and prestige and exposes them as the worst of the species, subject to the same self-defensive consequences. The hand-wringing over "illegal immigrants" is smoke and mirrors to keep you from thinking about the real issue. Real liberty.

Albuquerque woman fears for her daughter's safety

Albuquerque woman fears for her daughter's safety

An Albuquerque woman is afraid for the safety of her daughter. She fears the outcome of a murder trial. Her case may be unusual, due to her making really bad choices of acquaintances in the past, but all parents should keep the safety of their children in mind at all times, extraordinary circumstances or not.

I doubt this anonymous woman will read these words, but if she does, or if a caring friend of hers happens across this column, I have some advice for her.

It is not the government's responsibility, not even a police officer's responsibility, to protect you or your children. Court cases prove this fact over and over. Relying on any employee of any government to protect you will leave you vulnerable. Or dead. If you have reason to believe your child may be in danger, and you do not take action personally and with grave determination, how will you feel if something happens? Will you be satisfied if the attacker is arrested? Me neither.

Your child's safety is your responsibility. If you think your child is in danger from anyone, and even if you have no reason to suspect any unusual danger, it is your responsibility to make sure you are prepared, physically and mentally, to protect your child.

This means get the most effective self-defense tool available no matter what stands in your way, learn how to use it properly, make up your mind that you will not hesitate to strike back with it in a crisis, and make sure you never leave it behind for any reason. Any reason. If a particular place does not trust you with the best tools for self defense, you are wise to not go there. Period.

This responsibility means teaching your child developmentally-appropriate self-defensive lessons. Lessons they will need even if your fears turn out to be groundless.

This responsibility even means moving to a new area if you find it impossible to protect your child adequately where you currently reside. No price or inconvenience is "too high". Regrets can never be fixed; only avoided. Make up your mind now, before it is too late.

'Right and wrong' vs. the majority of life

'Right and wrong' vs. the majority of life

There is right and there is wrong; there are no "gray areas". However there are a lot of areas, the vast majority of our lives, in fact, that have nothing whatsoever to do with right or wrong. They lie completely outside the rather small realm of "right or wrong".

It is not "right" or "wrong" to walk across the room, nor to smoke some pot, nor to read a book.
If you are doing one of those things instead of something you should be doing, such as rescuing an innocent person in the room with you who is being attacked by killer chihuahuas, then you are doing wrong, but not because of what you are doing; rather because of what you are not doing.

The mere fact that you are "breaking the law" is no indication of whether you are in the right or in the wrong. That depends completely on whether the "law" you are violating has a foundation in prohibiting aggression, theft, or fraud. It is wrong to do those things regardless of the "legal" landscape, because as long as you are not initiating force, theft, or fraud the "law" has no legitimate say in what you do. For "the law" to pretend it does makes "the law", and those who advocate, write, and enforce it, the ones in the wrong. Are you, by your actions, harming any innocent person in any real way?

I am amazed by how many people don't get this. It is not wrong to be "dogmatic" and recognize this truth. In fact, to act as though this truth is unimportant can contribute to you acting in ways that are wrong. It can even lead you to support acts and policies that are evil.

Most people who argue for "gray areas" seem to do so due to a desire to do wrong, or support it, without feeling bad about it. They want to approve of torture, theft, aggression, and countless other things that an admission of "right or wrong" would put them unequivocally on the wrong side of.

Standing up for ALL rights for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, at ALL times is right. Finding ways to weasel your way into imaginary "gray areas" exposes your failure to be consistent and puts you in danger of being wrong.
___________________

The Albuquerque bank robber (oops- "alleged bank robber") who crashed his car into a vehicle, killing its two occupants, while fleeing pursuing LEOs, has been charged with robbing the bank and killing the two women. And the LEOs, without whose "public-endangering" pursuit the crash likely would never have happened, escape consequences. "Public safety", in a pig's eye. With "help" like this, we are better off on our own.

Could you become an 'illegal immigrant'?

Could you become an 'illegal immigrant'?

If roles were reversed, and I lived in a "country" where economic and individual liberty had been almost completely destroyed by thugs (both governmental and governmentally-enabled), either with the approval of the "voters" or by rigging the results of elections to give the appearance of voter approval, and there were a nearby "country" where life had the potential to be a little better, would I make a run for the border? You bet I would. What if I didn't have the permission of either country's government to migrate? That wouldn't even be a consideration.

If I did manage to escape to a better life, would I immediately turn my back on the culture I had grown up with? Not a chance. There is nothing wrong with "my culture", there is a problem with the controlling and oppressive government that made me want to escape. While I would attempt to learn the "native language" enough to at least be able to function, I would naturally seek out fellow migrants who spoke the language I was familiar with. People seek out those they can relate to, and who treat them nicely. I don't blame anyone else for doing the same thing I would do in their shoes.

Being the person I am, with the principles I possess, I would not collect welfare, even if it were offered in the new "country". Yet, if I had been raised in a "country" where "wealth redistribution"- theft- was the norm, I might not understand the wrongness of what I was doing. And if there were "natives" all around me living off the stolen property of their fellow "citizens" the message about right and wrong would undoubtedly get even more muddled.

Being me, I would not initiate force or fraud on the "natives", even while I watched them attack and rob one another. I would not be to blame for any of the other migrants who committed acts of this type, no matter whether their skin-tone and preferred language were the same as mine or not. I would retain the right to defend myself from immigrant-bashing violence, even knowing it would make me more unpopular to do so.

Do you believe this scenario could never happen? The reality is that with the course the US government seems determined to stay on, roles might really end up reversed for you and me. Sooner than we might imagine. Remember the Golden Rule, and it's more specific cousin: The Zero Aggression Principle. That is the only way to a civilized life.

ABQ Public Schools and budget problems

ABQ Public Schools and budget problems

Albuquerque Public (sic) Schools and the Albuquerque Teachers (sic) Federation are trying to bargain between themselves in this time of economic hardship. Not enough loot to go around once all the bureaucrats skim their share, I suppose. Yet, the solution is staring them in the face: close the "public" schools and let the teachers find jobs that do not rely upon stolen money. If they know how to actually teach, their skills would be in high demand in a free society.

Government schooling is not about education, but about indoctrinating young people into believing in the status quo. It trains young minds to accept the official lie that coercion and theft are OK as long as the perpetrators wear the silly hat of government. It brainwashes young people with nationalistic nonsense, nonsense that may have been sort of true at one time, but as soon as government became the greatest threat to individual liberty, any truth to that notion that may have once existed was crushed by the new reality. And that moment came as soon as the Constitution was written.

Government schooling is also about abdicating the parental responsibility to raise and educate the children you produce. It is designed for babysitting and keeping young people out from under foot, rather than immersing them in the world of real life and responsible people.

It trains the kids to live by the whims of the bells, and by the rules of people who only want them to sit down and shut up. I realize real teachers are not like this, but too few real teachers are employed in government schools to offset the tragic damage done by the others.
Government schools, and any private schools based on the same template, are bad for kids and bad for the future of civilization.

Education is much too important to leave to government. Separate school and State.



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

Liberty is always right

Liberty is always right

Respect for individual liberty, also known as "libertarianism" or "anarchism" is always right, whether you or I have already grasped all the implications completely or not. In the cases where I haven't "grasped it all", if those cases exist, give me time and I hope I come to understand the parts I am missing. If I am not fully "there" yet, it is not the fault of the philosophy, but of me.

Every argument against self-ownership or self-determination ("anarchy") falls apart when examined closely enough. I have learned enough to realize that justifications for coercion are always based upon false notions and deluded beliefs. Always. Even if I don't know what those faulty foundations are just yet, others have examined that very issue before me and have rooted out the flaws. And once again, justifications for externally-imposed coercive government, even your favorite brand, fail right before your very eyes.

However, I also have learned enough to see that those who staunchly refuse to admit this can not be "convinced". They have too much time, and in some cases, blood, invested in "the system" to be able to admit they have wasted their lives and also admit they have (often) demanded that others waste their own lives in "service" of flawed ideals. Or even evil.

Time after time, debates with those who still cling to some form of collectivism or socialism allow me the chance to examine my own position. All humans are subject to confirmation bias, but I seriously try very hard to examine the other person's position to see if I am off-base somewhere. And admit it if I am. So far the only times I have found my position to be flawed was when I still held on to some form of collectivism. Those cases are getting mighty rare now.
____________________________

"Government-owned" roads continue to be a stupid idea, as evinced by an inter-thief fight over who's to blame for an accident on an Albuquerque road. Was the rider (the only person apparently not being blamed by the aforementioned thieves) at fault, or is the road dangerous? If the road is dangerous can the injured rider sue the "owner", and if he wins, be paid restitution directly out of the guilty owner's pockets? In turf wars like this, "taxpayers" always lose.

What is to blame for 'law pollution'?

What is to blame for 'law pollution'?

I have rarely done this, but there is a blog entry by Claire Wolfe that is so good, I'm going to give you a taste and then send you there to read the rest.

The menace of “do somethingness"

You know how people are always trying to find solutions to
gigantic problems, and (because their only tool is government), making a worse
mess of everything? Blame “do somethingness.” If we could only end the “do
something” plague, clever, independent people might actually set about coming up
with real solutions to real-world messes. ...Read the rest...

Wasn't that wonderful? Spread it around to "those who don't get it", but who might someday.



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

Torture erases the difference between sides

Torture erases the difference between sides

Someone sent me a "joke" about torture that supposedly relates a minor Australian politician's statements about torture being a good thing, and giving the torturer flippant instructions, if it "will save just one Australian life". I find it disgusting. I'm not sure how anyone can think this subject is amusing.

If you are a torturer, or if you approve of torture under any circumstances, you are just as bad as that which you are supposedly opposing. The only thing that differentiates the "good guys" from the bad guys is a little thing called "the initiation of force". You cross that line and you are a bad guy, you have become evil, even if your enemy is also a bad guy. That's the odd thing about good and evil: two "evils" very often do fight one another and both can remain evil. Good and evil can also fight one another, of course; and two "goods" can not fight without at least one of them becoming evil. There is at least one evildoer in every fight. Don't embrace torture or you ensure that you are one of them.

If you did not use your force to stop an attack in progress, then you initiated the force. Even if you caught your prisoner "in the act", once you have ended his act of aggression you have lost your right to use further force against him.

Torture is always wrong. Those who justify, support, advocate, or use it have lost the high ground and are no better than any other terrorist thug. (On the other hand, catch a person in the act of attacking the innocent and you have free rein to stop the attack with anything up to and including deadly force.)

Don't try to call torture by any euphemisms, either. If you don't want someone doing it to your son or daughter, even if they are suspected of a "crime", then it is torture. Just like " water-boarding" or any of the other Guantanamo methods.

I do not applaud torture from anyone, nor for any reason. As with everything else in life, if you think the only solution is a violation of basic rights, you haven't examined the situation carefully enough. Plus, I doubt it even "works" (although, it is still wrong even if it does "work"). If I were being tortured, would I give truthful information, or would I say whatever I thought the torturer wanted to hear to get the torture to stop? You better believe I would lie if that's what I thought it took, especially if I didn't really have the information that was being sought.

Now, would I torture someone who had harmed or was threatening to harm one of my children? I don't know. If I did, I would still be wrong and would be subject to all the consequences of my actions. If it was worth it to me to commit wrong, I had better accept those consequences. I have no right to initiate force against another person for any reason. No. Right.

_______________________________

Government masquerading as the solution and causing more problems. The story gets awfully old, but people don't seem to learn the lesson.

Leo's Lounge in Albuquerque is being forcibly closed by the city. A "fire code violation" is the official justification, but the inspectors would have found something- anything- no matter what. I guarantee it.

The city has had problems with Leo's Lounge in the past. It seems it had been ordered to enforce a dress code (who was offended and why couldn't they go elsewhere? Idiots!) and increase security earlier this year, and now its own "security" has choked and beaten a customer into unconsciousness. So the wise city pinheads, seeing the results of their meddling, are now forcing the business to close.

If the security guy attacked an innocent person, let him reap the consequences. If anyone helped him do it, let the burden also be theirs. Would this guy have even been working at the lounge had the city not ordered the lounge to increase security?

"Problem bar"? If you ask me, the people of ABQ should shut down the problem government. That's where the real trouble lies.

Innocent - the definition

A person is "innocent" if they do not deserve to be harmed right now; at this moment.

The only reason anyone would deserve to be harmed at any time is if they are in the process of attacking, robbing, or defrauding an innocent person- violating life, liberty, or property

Everyone is innocent sometimes, and no one is innocent all the time. If you are initiating force or using coercion you are not innocent.

In my defense

I expect the cops to come kick in my door any minute now. What was my offense?

Let me start at the beginning. I ride my bike on almost all my local in-town trips. A few days ago, on my journey to the post office to pick up my mail, a dachshund ran out into the street to attack me. I pedalled faster and still wasn't able to outrun him. I couldn't believe tiny legs could move that fast, but then, I'm not a racer.

Today as I passed the same house (on the opposite side of the street), he ran out to get me again. I hollered "No! Go away! No!" and he ignored me. I kicked at him and my foot hit him in the face. He yelped slightly. The dog broke off the attack and ran home. The dog's owner watched all this in silence from his porch. Never scolding the dog or calling it off.

I was not trespassing. I was not trying to antagonize the dog in any way. I was simply going about my business. I tried to scold the dog into leaving me alone. Yet, I am sure the owner saw my kick in self defense as an attack on his precious little doggy.

Last summer a local weimaraner came after me as my daughter and I rode past another house. That dog bit me on the leg, but I just kept pedaling harder to keep my daughter out of harm's way (she was in a trailer behind my bike). A few days later the weimaraner's owners were in the yard so I told them about the bite. They were less than concerned. They are lucky I am not a believer in using government force.

People who do not control their dogs do not love their dogs.

Albuquerque to follow in Arizona's missteps?

Albuquerque to follow in Arizona's missteps?

"Immigration reform". It was wrong of Arizona to do it. It will be wrong of Albuquerque or New Mexico to do it. It is wrong and unconstitutional, which means illegal, for the federal government to do it. Read the Constitution if you don't believe me, and show me where immigration control is specifically authorized. Don't bother trying to blame "general welfare" or the little "slave importation" blurb in (Article 1, Section 9) that is left to the states, either.

Just as you or I are not subject to the "laws" of Mexico, Canada, or Australia, neither are the people claimed by those or any other governments subject to the laws of the US government. For that matter, any "law" that attempts to regulate, prohibit, or control anything other than actual aggression, theft, or fraud is not a real law. It is a counterfeit "law" which has no legitimacy and is not binding.

It is not about where a person was born or where you think he "belongs". It is not about any of the side issues that are the frequent justifications for these liberty-killing policies. And wrong is wrong, no matter who does it- "illegal" or "citizen" makes not a bit of difference.

If you are concerned about people trespassing on your property, deal with the trespassers. Form posses; use remote cameras; build machine gun-wielding robots to defend your own property, but do not do any trespassing yourself while riding fence lines. If you do, the exact same rules apply to you as to any other trespasser, and you don't want to forget that fact. Remember, if you own property you can set the rules for people entering your property, but you have absolutely no say on your neighbor's rules, and whom they may allow or forbid on their property.

Aggression and theft are wrong no matter who is committing them. It is no more wrong for an independent migrant to kill or rob than it is for a "citizen" of the US, or for a LEO or federal agent, to kill or rob. Focus on the problem, the aggression or theft, not on people you wish to find a reason to hate or fear.

Don't forget that the stupid and evil Drug War- Prohibition, Part 2- is the main cause of the border violence. Government-caused problems can only be solved by getting government completely out of the picture, not by giving government more power.

Cop cars, and the costs of taking them home

Cop cars, and the costs of taking them home

I'm not talking about the costs if you or I decided, on the spur of the moment, to take a cop car home with us. Even though we do own them. I'm talking about a diversionary debate a government has dreamed up.

The Albuquerque city council is looking into the costs associated with APD officers who drive their police cars to and from work. And well they should. Wear and tear on the vehicles costs "taxpayers' money".

However, whether the LEOs take their official "lighted extortion units" home with them, or drive their personal vehicles to work and back, the money to pay all those costs still comes from the same place: your pocket.

You do realize that any money a "public employee" spends was originally taken out of the market in order to pay his or her salary. Right? That money wasn't earned through voluntary trade; it was coercively confiscated through "taxation", fees, licenses, fines and other governmental methods of theft. That means even if those cops are using "their own" cars, and paying for "their own" fuel, ultimately the money was taken from you. That being the case, you have a right to say how and where your money is being spent. If those who are on the dole don't like it, they can always get an honest job.

Now, if you like having your money taken this way, that is your business. Throw all your own money away in whatever way you like. Just don't demand that everyone else do the same, and then cheer when people are killed for wanting to keep their own personal property. That's not nice or honest.

Remember: anything worth doing can be done voluntarily. Without relying on coercion and force. Without adopting gangland tactics. Without needing an "Only One" class.

Trade deficits- not just irrelevant, but completely imaginary

Trade deficits- not just irrelevant, but completely imaginary

I was once again watching John Stossel's show. This latest episode was on "free trade", and talked a lot about the myth of "trade deficits" being a bad thing. Yet, the show missed the biggest, and (to me) most obvious point.

Stossel was very good at defending free trade, and exposed Lou Dobbs as a source of a lot of hot air without a foundation. But, one thing Stossel didn't point out is that there can be no such thing as a "trade deficit". Maybe he has bought into the myth, just a little, himself. Maybe he hasn't thought this through, yet. The truth is there can be trade, or there can be theft. The component that makes the distinction, by its presence or absence, is coercion.

The example that is much overused in regard to "trade deficits" is China. Chinese manufacturers make stuff, cheap, and sell it to customers in America. And we customers pay them for it. No one forces us to buy any one thing in particular. Even government has so far failed in this area. When we give a Chinese manufacturer dollars, we have made an even trade. Dollars for products. There is no deficit. Unless a government or mugger gets involved and takes your property (products or dollars) and gives nothing (or too little) in return, the trade is always an even one.

That is, unless you claim that the money traded for the products is worth more than the product you got in return, in which case you are an idiot to agree to the trade. Personally, as an individual. Or unless you wish to admit that US dollars are worthless (or worth-less), in which case the Chinese company got ripped off, not you. You have no authority, nor enough wisdom, to judge another person's trade. What makes sense to them may seem one-sided to you. That is not for you to judge.

If you are mad that "PlastiCrap World" sells cheap Chinese products, don't buy them. Pay more and get a better item instead, either from the same store or from a competitor. Or get what you want from a yard sale or flea market. Or design and build your own. I do all the above, and so can you. Plus, sometimes I buy the "cheap junk" because it suits my needs at the price I am willing to pay at the time. Once again: voluntary trade; no deficit.

The whole myth of "trade deficits" is just an excuse to tell you who you can trade with, and under what conditions. It also always funnels some money into thieving governmental hands. This myth is an authoritarian power-grab and is bad for liberty and good for coercive government.
_______________________

Albuquerque "Public" Schools (government indoctrination camps) superintendent Brooks warns students that they can only voice their opinions as long as they do so in a way he approves (and he doesn't have to listen), and reminds them that they are prisoners and can't leave just because they want to. Of course, he uses more dishonest words to say this, but the meaning is clear.

Education is much too important to leave to government and self-serving bureaucrats like Brooks. Separate school and state.

Arizona 'law' generates Albuquerque protest

Arizona 'law' generates Albuquerque protest

There was a protest, Saturday, in Albuquerque spurred by Arizona's new immigration "law".
The new "law" is wrong and is an abomination. The Constitution doesn't authorize immigration control. The only thing it mentions that could be construed as controlling immigration actually probably refers to importing slaves, and it passes that particular buck onto the states.

However, this is not a Tenth Amendment issue either, since anything that violates a human right is a counterfeit "law" that has no foundation in legitimacy, whether "authorized" in the Constitution or not.

Nor is this about "trespassing"; you can bar anyone from crossing your property for any reason (unless they happen to be government-sanctioned trespassers out to rob or kill you). The government has no legitimate authority over your property concerning whom you allow on it or bar from it. The government does not legitimately own any property since it owns nothing it did not steal or buy with stolen money. A thief does not own the stolen property he possesses- regardless of his claims to the contrary.

Wrong is wrong. Stop allowing the state, in any of its manifestations, to criminalize self-defense and defense of property. End welfare. ALL welfare. End the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. Do all this and there is no more "illegal immigration" issue, unless your issue is racism, in which case there's nothing I can say to cure that.

If you excuse or ignore Constitutional violations and rights violations you happen to like, then who will stand up for you during Constitutional and/or rights violations you don't like, and which may target you personally?

New Mexico number two in census non-compliance

New Mexico number two in census non-compliance

Yay! We're number two!

Even including urban areas like Albuquerque, which are prone to obeying "authority" no matter how bogus, New Mexico comes in second in the number of census resisters and ignorers. Just behind that last frontier and land of individualism: Alaska. Good start. Now, when the minion of the state comes to your door in the person of a living, breathing busybody, don't cave in. It is still none of their business.

While the Constitution authorizes the government to count heads, and not one thing more, nowhere does it require you or me to cooperate with the enumeration, nor does it authorize legal consequences for refusal to cooperate. That doesn't mean there would be no "legal" consequences, just that by pursuing them the government would demonstrate, once again, its status as an illegitimate occupying force of invaders rather than a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". The myth is exposed.
_____________________

Want a good examination of the issue of anarchism, and an illustration of the opposing views? Head over to Sipsey Street, read Mike V's post, and especially check out the comments, pro and con. This is why I am an anarchist. I especially enjoyed this essay which I found by following a link in the comments. Statists have had thousands of years to get "government" right. It's delusional. It's utopian. It won't happen; it can't happen. Time's up.

Same planet; different worlds

Read this story about a city park (link) in a city just across the state line from me, and then read my letter-to-the editor, which coincidentally came out on the same day in a different newspaper (my local one, which has no website), and notice the completely different mindsets at work. Only 10 miles or so separate us, but we exist in different worlds.

I'll reproduce my letter below, since it is probably impossible to read the scanned image:

I'm going to step up on my soap box for a minute to make a couple of
observations about the Farwell city park. If you don't use the park, then
I am not speaking to you. In your case, you already do more for the park
than you should since you have your property coercively confiscated to pay for
the park's maintenance. For this insult to your rights and property, I
sympathize. I am only speaking to those of us who use the
park.

Well, not everyone who uses the park. I am also not talking to the
unrepentantly irresponsible individuals who smash glass bottles and drop their
waste wherever they happen to be. They wouldn't listen to me, even if they
read a newspaper.

I am speaking about all the trash that winds up on the ground in the
park. The trash cans scattered around the park are worse than useless when
they are full. I notice that they rarely get emptied, since I see
individually distinguishable items sit in the cans for months at a time.
If the can is full, and you stuff some items on top, you may as well toss your
trash on the ground. That is where it will soon end up, after all.
Of course, there is a convenient alternative: there are dumpsters along the
edges of the park that are emptied weekly. You might consider taking a few
extra steps and putting your trash in them. Or, if nothing else appeals to
you, take your trash home with you.

Parties at the park are great, but they produce more trash than the little
cans will hold. Your paper plates, cake boxes, dismembered pinata corpses,
and gift wrap overflow the cans and end up blowing all over the place.
Consider bringing a trash bag for this excess waste and then putting it all in
one of the dumpsters as you leave.

It is not "the city's responsibility". It is yours, as a park
user. Trying to make "the city" responsible just gives "the city" an
excuse to either "tax" you more to "fix it", or to pass silly ordinances that
will violate your liberty. The problems, and the only real solutions, lie
with each of us individually. Your choice is to either listen to me, or
discount me as a crank. It doesn't matter to me which you choose.
Either way, I wish you well.

I was reminded that I should have used the opportunity to advocate privatization, and I kick myself for overlooking that, since it is something that runs through my mind all the time. I wish I could always think of everything that needs to be said in every circumstance!

Burglar has been lucky so far

Burglar has been lucky so far

As if you need more proof that the "justice system" is not "just" and is not organized well-enough to be called a "system", here's this:

An Albuquerque man keeps getting caught after burglarizing houses, yet since he has been found "incompetent" he can't be imprisoned for long, and since his thefts have so far been non-violent he can't be committed to a mental facility.

There is an obvious, very inexpensive, solution. And, if the man keeps doing what he's been doing, according to "the authorities", he will eventually solve the problem himself when he surprises a responsible property owner in a supposedly empty house. The odds are not with him.

Yet, there might be a less bloody solution, too.

I can't help but wonder if a security company might not want to hire this man, and keep him on a "leash" of sorts, in order to test their systems. He certainly has the experience necessary for the job. He could still pursue his hobby, and still make money at it, without the risk of meeting an indignant and frightened person who has been sitting at home, with the lights and TV off due to a migraine. It's a win-win situation. Of course, if he really is incompetent he might not recognize this fact.

Either way, has he been expected to pay restitution to the property owners he has stolen from (and probably left damage in his wake)? Why not? That is an essential part of "justice". Are the property owners who have been harmed allowed to post his picture everywhere they go, to shun him and educate others about what this man does in his spare time?

Follow the link to the news story, memorize the man's face, and when you see him out on the streets in coming weeks, and if you trust what the authorities claim about this man, follow him around and see if he burglarizes anything while you watch. It might be amusing for you and educational for him.

Giving up liberty for ... nothing

Giving up liberty for ... nothing

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Ben Franklin

A few years ago, a person I know gave up almost everything he enjoyed for the promise of financial security. He thought, at the time, it was an acceptable trade. Then this promise of financial security turned out to be a complete fabrication. His enjoyment was sold for nothing, and he found himself in a situation where getting out would cause even more problems than staying in. He deserved to lose the things he loved because he was too willing to sell them for security, and so, he ended up with neither.

I'm not sure if Ben Franklin was speaking only of "countries" or if he was thinking, too, of individuals when he made his famous statement. Either way, he was so very, tragically, right.

In a slightly less individual way, Americans have sold their liberty for false promises of security from government. Government which has turned out to be the biggest threat to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ever encountered.

To have "borders" to "protect us" from immigrants, they have traded their liberty to travel freely, even inside those "borders", for government control and usurpation of private property rights. And still no safety has resulted, not even from "immigrants". Only tyranny.

Faced with the fact that not all businesses are operated in an honest way, Americans traded the free market for fascism that, while not having government owning the businesses outright, completely controls them through regulations while stealing a huge chunk of their profits. And yet people still get scammed and harmed.

Because people fear for their safety while flying, they allowed a government takeover of "security" at airports, yet if a bad person is determined, he can still, obviously, wreak havoc. And, they know that none of the good people aboard a plane will be sufficiently armed to resist effectively due to government controls. Security theater, and the disarming of the decent people, hasn't resulted in safety, but in opportunities. Both for "terrorists" and "TSAerrorists".

Security is an illusion. If you seek it you will end up being hurt and enslaved. You are better off taking your chances in the real world, knowing there are no guarantees, than handing over your liberty to someone who has only your subjugation in mind.
________________________

In Albuquerque area news, the fe(de)ral government is targeting Native American communities with anti-meth advertisements. Paid for with your money, of course, like everything government does.

Here's a better idea: stop criminalizing the stuff and let people seek treatment for themselves and their loved ones without fear of prosecution. Stop enabling social stigma that is based upon nothing more than "illegality". Stop making excuses for theft and aggression, and stop criminalizing self defense and the necessary tools to exercise it.

Let people defend themselves from theft and attack no matter who is doing the thieving or attacking, and regardless of what mind-altering substance the guilty party may be on.
More "laws" are not the answer. Stronger enforcement is not the answer. Advertisements are not the answer. Waking up to reality is the only answer.

To add insult to injury, I notice that in the official list of "root causes" (poverty, lack of opportunity, loss of language and culture, challenging family circumstances, hopelessness), almost all of them are a direct result of governmental treatment of the Native population. Now, the prime offenders think they have the solution? Don't bet on it.

Parking lots teach a lesson

Parking lots teach a lesson

I was driving across a parking lot recently and I realized that just about everyone, including me, considers the signs and striping in a parking lot to be a suggestion, rather than an order. Yet, while accidents do happen, they are fairly rare. Nothing at all like the "chaos" that is predicted by people who think there needs to be a cop on every corner.

Spontaneous order takes over because most people don't want to be hit by another car, and don't want to do the hitting either. If a rude person is blasting across the lot, other, responsible, drivers stop for him no matter who thinks they have the right-of-way. It is self-preservation and makes perfect sense to do so.

Knowing that a car could come from almost any direction at any moment, you pay closer attention to your surroundings, and you watch out for those who are not watching out for you. If two "oblividiots" encounter one another, an accident can occur. Just as can and will happen out on the roads, where fine-hungry LEOs prowl, and every move not forbidden is mandatory.
________________________

Las Cruces' government seems to think it has fallen behind the times. There are now digital, electronic signage (who knew?) and no laws have been enacted to limit the technological advance yet. So, they are seeing what the governments of Albuquerque, El Paso TX, Mesa AZ, and a couple other cities have done to try to keep the scary future at bay.

Government- who benefits?

Government- who benefits?

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether allowing government to exist is ethical, let's consider a different issue. Is government beneficial to anyone? I think it is.

Those on the fringes can benefit. This doesn't mean that everyone on the fringes takes advantage of "legalized coercion" for their benefit. Some of these people have a better ethical foundation than do others and understand right from wrong.

People at the peak of the social pyramid ( a "fringe group") benefit from the popularity, position, power, and wealth they can gain by using government. They also benefit from special favors, a form of welfare, they both establish and collect.

The "complete losers" at the very bottom are kept alive and rewarded by "the system" in the hopes they will thank those at the top with votes, or at least by shouting down the vast "middle" that supports the welfare state, often against their will, with the fruits of their labor.

Unfortunately, too many in the middle don't understand the position they have been put in and defend the very "system" that has been built upon their backs. The religious fervor of their defense doesn't mean they benefit, only that they don't see the truth.

Government may be OK for those on the fringes of society but it hurts everyone else. Let those fringes choose to play the government game if they want, but leave the rest of us alone.
_______________________

The Albuquerque office of the State Motor Vehicle Division in the Cottonwood Mall will be closed, and other MVD offices will have their hours reduced because of budget cuts. Here's an idea to save even more money: close them all permanently.

Nothing done in those offices is authorized by the Constitution, and all their activities are therefore illegal, and nothing done in those offices does anything other than damage "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Close the MVD offices, let honest businesses take over the buildings, and stop violating the basic human and civil right of everyone to travel freely, as long as they do not trespass, in whatever way they see fit and in whatever sort of conveyance they possess. Anything less is tyranny.

Authoritarianism attracts the worst of humanity

Authoritarianism attracts the worst of humanity

The worst traits of humans are all embodied and empowered in authoritarianism. Laziness, gluttony, greed, aggressiveness, envy.... all of these traits get bad press, whether they are really bad or not, but none of these things can cause too much harm to others by themselves.

It is when they are practiced by those who have power over the lives of others that they begin to produce real harm. This is when they lead to evil acts.

Unfortunately, people with an excess of these traits are drawn to the positions of power that government provides. They get to attain power and then use the position to feed their personality flaws at the expense of those around them.

Some people may not know they have these traits until the opportunity comes to express them.
Then they discover it is easier to live off of stolen loot than to support themselves honestly.
They discover it is easier to order other people around, and kidnap or kill them if they are uncooperative, than it is to do something themselves if they think it is worth doing. They discover it is easier to take what they want rather than earn it for themselves. If you doubt me, watch the president (any of them) or congress at work.

As Robert LeFevre pointed out

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you
don't dare have one."

_______________________________

In Albuquerque "area" news: Thieves are fighting over how to divide loot that is being collected illegally. And I mean "illegally" in the statist usage as well as the ethical usage.

Las Cruces is still using illegal red light cameras, and still collecting "fines" with them in defiance of the law. And the only real complaint is that they are not sharing the stolen money with other governmental thugs. It doesn't really surprise me, but confirms that government is nothing but bad guys with "authority".

What libertarianism is

What libertarianism is

From Libertarianism.com:

"Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your
life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against
the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and
respecting the peaceful choices of others)."

I don't see anything there that advocates or justifies an externally imposed government, nor anything that a true anarchist ("without Rulers") would object to. This is why I say "anarchism is libertarianism in full-bloom- with all the contradictions stripped away".

Of course, a person could call himself a "libertarian" and hold views that are incompatible with libertarianism. Just as many people who call themselves "anarchists" support the idea of having a Ruler as long as it is "one of their own guys". Consistency is not a strong characteristic in humans.

A person who supports the Libertarian Party is not necessarily a libertarian. It depends on whether they advocate the use of coercion in any case. If they do, then in that area they are not libertarian. You can not "tax" without coercion. You can not "secure borders" that are along property that is not your own, or along a person's property on whose behalf (without his consent) you are working, without coercion. You can not send "troops" around the world coercing "foreign" individuals to accept Rulers they do not want or to live under a government not of their choosing without violating the core principles of libertarianism. You can not order people how to live, no matter how badly their personal lives offend you, as long as they are not attacking, defrauding, or stealing from an innocent person, and still be libertarian.

A person who venerates the US Constitution is a "Constitutionalist", not a libertarian. Where the Constitution violates the basic human rights of anyone, anywhere, it is wrong. Where it "authorizes" government to use coercion to attain its goals, it is not "libertarian". This is not to say there is no libertarianism in the Constitution; there is just too much other stuff there smothering any libertarianism there might have been.

Look at your "libertarianism" closely before you advocate your non-libertarian views as "real libertarianism". What I write could violate libertarianism somewhere. If it does, call me on it. But, once we examine the disagreement, the position that advocates any form of initiated force/coercion is the position that is not "libertarian", "right" or not.

Liberty is not a cult of personality

I notice how often people who disagree with me find it necessary to attack me personally. That's about the worst way to try to make their point I can think of.

Of all people, I know I have faults, and I know what most of them are. I even have a list. That doesn't change facts.

I could be the most awful person to have ever crawled out from under a bridge, but that has no bearing on Liberty. Right is right, no matter who acknowledges it, and no matter if I live up to it or not.

The rightness of liberty, and of libertarianism, is not dependent upon me being perfect. It is not a cult of personality. Whether I am here or not, whether I believe in Liberty or not, nothing substantive has changed. When I am not perfect I know I fail to live up to my principles, but at least I have them.

So, if you hate me, that's fine. But attack the concepts I am talking about instead of pathetically trying to bring me down, thinking it will discredit Liberty and libertarianism. It won't. I am not that important.

Libertarian countries- an oxymoron

Libertarian countries- an oxymoron

One incredibly silly demand that crops up pretty often, in one form or another, is: "Show me one successful state/country that has existed by libertarian/anarchist principles."

People who are more versed in history (I know some) could show you examples, as they have shown me to my satisfaction. But this demand misses the entire point. Once you form a state you have scrapped the core principle: that a state is not a legitimate thing. A state can not exist without using coercion. By definition. Therefore a "libertarian state" violates "libertarianism" from the first.

I don't oppose efforts like the Free State Project, or Free State Wyoming, or even much smaller projects, but I tend to think real liberty is a one-person-at-a-time project. That doesn't mean I wouldn't move somewhere to add to a freedom-oriented community.

This also brings up the reason I don't advocate voting and why I don't go out of my way to support "libertarian" candidates. The only legitimate justification for holding political office would be to dismantle the system to make further ruling impossible. Not to force everyone to be "free" by taking over the political structure that exists. I have only known of one candidate who stated dismantling as his objective. Me.

_____________________________

An Albuquerque home builder has been given an ultimatum- finish building the houses you started or the city will demolish them. It sounds like the builder has more than just financial difficulties, but let me suggest a libertarian solution to all parties involved:

Why not sell the houses "as is" for a fair price (based upon their incomplete condition and the time they have been abandoned) and let the new owners finish building them. Habitat For Humanity or some other charitable organization could even get involved. I'm sure there is some "law" against this solution.

Boy shoots self- authorities' advice, if followed, will ensure it happens to more children

Boy shoots self- authorities' advice, if followed, will ensure it happens to more children

A four year old Albuquerque boy found a gun at home and shot and killed himself, and the "authorities" draw the wrong conclusion, and want you and me to learn the wrong lesson, from the tragedy. In fact, following their advice will ensure more tragedies of this type in the future.
Quoting what the cops reportedly said from the above-linked story:

"...this is a lesson to be learned for people who have guns out there: to
keep their guns away from kids, locked up, separate from the bullets.
That's the lesson they want to get out tonight."

No, no, ruttin' NO! This completely terrible advice from the "authorities", the worst advice they could possibly give, is the equivalent of never letting your kids see or experience water, because they could drown. Never teaching them to swim, but telling them to never go near water, no matter where they find it. And then being "surprised" when the perfectly predictable happens and a child drowns because they were kept ignorant and water was mystified instead of being explained in a truthful, educational, and fun way. The stupidity of this tactic infuriates me. It results in completely preventable deaths of innocent children. You know what that makes advice like this, don't you?

If you want to make certain your children are safe around your guns, or other people's guns, you must familiarize them with guns. Do not make the guns into mysterious, forbidden objects. That only guarantees your children will try to sneak a peek at the guns when you aren't looking; when you can't be supervising and instructing. Teach them developmentally-appropriate lessons about anything that can hurt them.

With guns, that means to let them see you handling your guns safely, and talk to them about why you handle the guns the way you do. If they wish to hold your gun, have them watch as you check and double-check to make certain it is unloaded, teach them to check for themselves, and then make sure they still handle the gun as if it were loaded. No pointing the muzzle at the gun at anything they are not willing to destroy. Take them out shooting and let them see the destructive power of a gun, yet let them understand that the gun does not have a mind of its own and it is under the handler's control, for good or bad. Counteract all the false information they will receive from "news", entertainment, and "law enforcement".

The perverted monsters who advocate "gun control" always snivel "...if it saves one life...". Well, this will save a lot more than one life. Guaranteed. If it is done. Now.

I don't know how this family raised and trained their children, so I don't mean this as an accusation of any sort against them. Sometimes, no matter what you do, tragedies will still happen. That is a fact of life in this Universe that will never change. I am glad that the grieving parents won't face a kidnapping or the threat of other punishment from the "law" since that is the "legal" equivalent of kicking a person when he is down, but I can't help but wonder if the family received "special consideration" due to the father's status as a federal Only One.

The adventure of Charles and his microchip

The adventure of Charles and his microchip

I'm sure most of you have heard by now the tale of Charles, the cat from Albuquerque who ended up in Chicago eight months after disappearing from home.

The story has a happy ending since he was found and identified because of his embedded tracking microchip.

Microchips? A good thing? Well, yes. In this case. Notice the poison ingredient that is missing from the story: Government. Mixing science (microchips) and government makes something with potential for good into a tool for harm. It's like handing a cocked and loaded gun to a drunk, angry, jealous psychopath while the object of his anger is standing three feet in front of him taunting him. The adventure of Charles has a happy ending precisely because no government got involved.

I would have no objection to people choosing to have microchips implanted, for medical or other reasons. My objection comes when microchips become mandatory (or a de facto requirement in order to function in society). Then, allowing government access to the information on the chips adds potential for extreme misuse. If you wish to have a chip implanted in you, that is your business. Just don't expect me to go along.

Coercion- the definition

I think all force is coercion, but not all coercion necessarily involves force.

A lot of coercion uses deceit or manipulation. Some force is justifiable, such as in self defence (it is not "initiated force" in this case), but what I call "coercion" is never justified.

I don't include self-defensive actions as coercion (by definition), even if you are able to "talk" a thug out of attacking you. He initiated the force- he is the aggressor- so your actions are strictly self-defense.

For me, coercion is purely the initiatory act of forcing or causing someone to act in a way that is against their legitimate will.

Mixing science and state- expect an explosion

Mixing science and state- expect an explosion

I like science. It is a method of examining the Universe that has helped find many ways for us to live longer, healthier, happier lives. Many other people in our modern world see science as a threat. I think they are misguided. Where the threat occurs is when you mix science and government.

I trust scientists as individuals until politics is added to the mix, either by "government-funding" their research or by needing the research to produce a particular result for "the common good". Since government is founded upon lies and hatred, once you allow that to influence science in any way, the result can not be good. Look around at all the harmful ways science has been used in the past, and notice where the driving force originated. It was not in the lab.

Scientists, being human, are obviously susceptible to coercion, intimidation, and being bribed with the promise of money to continue their research. They have bills to pay, jobs to keep, and families to support. I have fallen prey to the same things at various times in my life, so I understand the pitfalls. Remove the "legitimacy" of government coercion and you remove that threat.

All the really nasty things that have come from scientific inquiry were undertaken at the direction of government. Science was the tool, an individual government employee was the thug wielding it. Blaming science for the bad consequences of its misuse makes as much sense as blaming guns for the way bad guys use them. In other words, no sense at all.

Remember too, that corporations are in reality a part of the government before you place blame on honest businesses. Corporations depend on governmental favors and exemptions that should not exist in a market. The free market has nothing to do with corporations.

There desperately needs to be a separation of science and state, as another step in the ultimate goal of a separation of life and state. "We" can't afford to ignore the danger any longer.
_______________________

Mere "possession" of anything can never be a real "crime". In Albuquerque news, a woman has supposedly killed herself in jail after being arrested for possession of some substance the government doesn't approve of. She is another victim of the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. I didn't know her, and have no idea whether she was a decent person or not, but this doesn't matter. No government program or policy is important enough for people to die for. None.

Government- to keep us safe. Or not.

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"?