What 'offends' you?

An Albuquerque local family was offended that they found newspapers with some ads featuring female nudity (some of which was even blurred out) stuffing a piñata they had bought for their two year-old daughter's party. It wasn't that any of the children noticed the ads- they didn't since the candy filling was all they focused on- just that ... "what if...".

Yeah? What if? Two year olds are not shocked or offended by nudity. They haven't had time to be perverted by culture in that way yet. The "adults" need to act like adults and laugh and get over it. Instead they look at this as an opportunity to be offended and make some weird "moral point".

I happen to be offended by things that "the majority" doesn't find offensive at all, while things the majority does find offensive don't bother me at all. It gives me a different perspective. I'm surrounded by offensive stuff that no one else seems to notice at all. Of course, I would never think of forbidding possession or production of the offensive materials either. It is just the difference between the libertarian and authoritarian mindsets, I suppose.

I think it is more productive to point out the absurdity of accepting as "normal" some of the offensive (and harmful) things our culture accepts. I am offended by mindless support of "law enforcement", and by "flag-waving" support of military invasions and occupations by the US government's hired thugs. I am offended by the punishmentality that has infected our society. I am offended by the view that I don't have the right to defend myself from attack unless I beg permission first. I am offended by the delusion that every problem can be solved if only "the right law" is passed or enforced. Yet, these views surround us in society today.

It's a matter of real harm versus imaginary "what ifs", and the authoritarian side- the wrong side- is offensive to me. I know that it would be pointless to make an issue every time something offends me since everyone who is not offended by it would think I was being silly. Just as I do when others are offended by unimportant things. Like newspaper ad nudity.

For example: An Albuquerque eye doctor has fallen victim to government thuggery in a case that is offensive to me from multiple angles. Harming people "for their own good" is disgusting and very offensive to me.

Cops coming? Don't stick around

Cops coming? Don't stick around

LEOs in Albuquerque responded to a report of a stabbing, but could find no victim. I don't blame the victim for running off. Maybe he has heard what happens to victims of aggression or theft when the Bad(ge) Guys show up. The original attack is just the beginning.

Sure, it could be argued, with good reason, that the victim was probably involved in some activities that he didn't want the cops to know about. He probably has a "record". Maybe because of activities that were actually wrong ("mala in se"); maybe they were only "illegal" ("mala prohibita"). Either way, had he stayed around he would still be wounded (cops can't undo that), and probably would have been "arrested" on top of that.

No good can come of staying around to talk to "The Law". Not for the stabbing victim and not for you. It's a lesson we should all learn.



Note: Sorry about the late posting, and the lack of an introductory paragraph. Now, I am unable to share my Examiner columns elsewhere using any tool provided by Examiner. As of today I can't even put a link on here until an hour or so after I publish the column. And by that time I'm usually not hanging around the computer. Examiner's cascade failures are getting frustrating for me. I'll still post the entire columns here after a week of trying to milk all the page views I can get.

"The Right's" favorite whine to libertarians

"The Right's" favorite whine to libertarians

I have previously touched on the most irritating comment I encounter from "The Left". Now "The Right" gets equal time.

The most personally annoying comment I have encountered from the right is something along the lines of: "You talk bad about cops now, but just wait until you need them. Then you'll be crying for their protection!" Sure. Just like I'll "need" MS-13 if I am victimized by a lone mugger in an alley.

"The urge to defend police for their criminality will always render the
rightwing completely unable to understand and defend liberty." - Anthony Gregory

I have long said that there is no situation so terrible that it can't be made worse, by orders of magnitude, by bringing in "law enforcement". To pretend otherwise is to ignore a growing body of evidence, and almost daily lethal examples.

Sure, if you haven't thought it through you may reflexively call the cops in case of a crime against you. That's what you have been conditioned to do. If you are even aware of the tragedies that often result, to the innocent, you may believe it could never happen to you. And you would be wrong.

You may believe that "I've done nothing wrong- I have nothing to hide". How sure are you that you have not violated even one of the 5 or 6 million federal laws that even the federal government admits it can't keep track of? How sure are you that you are not openly violating some state or local "law" that you weren't aware of? Do you think responding LEOs will ignore your violations just because you were the victim of some crime? It didn't work out that way for an Albuquerque man recently.

The Right is so trapped in their "punishmentality" that they can't wait to see someone taken down by the cops- until it happens to be themselves or a friend. Then, suddenly, it is a case of "The Left" passing "laws" that "violate their God-given freedoms". The hypocrisy is laughable, yet so sad.

I'll take my chances with the freelance thugs. What you choose to do if you fall victim to aggression or theft is none of my business, but just be aware that "The Law" has no interest in justice. They only want to not be bothered with you or your troubles. Maybe they will take their frustration out on the bad guy; maybe not. Is it really worth the risk anymore?

Asking permission is begging for punishment

Asking permission is begging for punishment

Need more proof that government has no business being involved in anyone's marriage? An Albuquerque man is facing felony bigamy charges because he did what most humans do at some point- he moved on to the next mate.

His mistake was in allowing government to "officially recognize" his relationship with the previous mate, and then neglecting to ask government to officially recognize the end of that relationship. Then, because he also allowed government to "officially recognize" the next relationship, he is facing criminal charges. He wasn't actually with them both, as "husband", at the same time. And his previous mate, in an act of evil, used the State and its counterfeit "laws" as a weapon against this man because she held a childish grudge. I see no claim he was harming her in any way- she simply knew of a way to hurt him, and she took advantage of it.

Government has no business sanctioning marriage (or anything else). Asking permission from government for your relationship is like pouring sewage in your well. What you've got, if it is good, is good. It needs nothing added. This applies to homosexuals and the polyamorous just as much as to heterosexuals.

Of course, "laws" giving perks to governmentally-recognized relationships are probably one of the main motivations for this foolish act. Actually, it isn't "perks" so much as a reduction in the penalties for existence that government piles on each individual. It is understandable that people try to reduce this burden in "legal" ways by jumping through hoops for the amusement and enrichment of the meddlesome Rulers.

Rather than seeking to be as equally violated as the next person, stop asking permission for your relationships. Force government to remove the penalties for existence. And never ask permission to do that which is your human right to do.

Even if in the monority, dare to speak up

Even if in the monority, dare to speak up

What if you, a generally "libertarian" person, have a position on some issue that is at odds with the position of other "libertarian" people? Should you keep your opinion to yourself? What if it turns out that you are wrong?

I think it is better to express yourself. Perhaps you are seeing the issue from a different angle that other people are not considering. Maybe you are misunderstanding the issue completely. How will anyone know or learn if no one speaks out?

Recently I have been following, in a cursory way, a libertarian disagreement over "intellectual property". While I see the point that each side is trying to make, (here, here, here, and here) I agree it could have been handled in a more friendly way. After all we are all in this together.

Still, I think it is good to get these disagreements out in the open where all sides of the issue can be aired. I doubt anyone involved will change their minds, but people on the sidelines, who may not have thought it over yet, can see all the arguments and decide which position (if any) has more merit. Then, possibly, in the future it may be self-evident which side was really supporting individual liberty and which was not. Or a third way may be seen as the truth while the current battle of words will be seen as arguing over angels and pinheads.

ABQ drug-thieves-in-uniform strike again

ABQ drug-thieves-in-uniform strike again

An Albuquerque man has been "arrested" for making and selling steroids. What I can't find anywhere in the news story is an indication that any of his customers felt they had been defrauded or harmed.

The "brave" drug warriors made a big deal out of the fact that he was using "cattle medications" as raw materials for his product. So what? Chemicals don't know whether they are "cattle medications" or "human medications". After all, take extremely toxic sodium and combine it with extremely toxic chlorine and you get table salt which is necessary for life. The beginning raw materials have no bearing on the final product. Was he selling what he was claiming to be selling?

Now, I think steroid use for "muscle building" is incredibly stupid. The risks, to me, are not worth the supposed benefits. That is my choice and I have no right to force others to go along. If, because of abuse of the steroids, his customers become prone to "'roid rage" and attack me, I have the right to fight back however I see fit, just like I do in any case of an attack under any circumstances.

The LEOs were not content to just kidnap the man (and his wife), though. They also set to work immediately to make sure everyone heard what a bad man the independent chemist is.
Supposedly the drugs, including some for personal use rather than inventory, were within easy reach of children in the home. Were the children suspected of ingesting any? If not, maybe they knew better than the man or his customers.

There was also a stolen gun in the house, which is the only thing I find really wrong in this scenario. However, did he know it was stolen? Did he steal it himself or know it was stolen when he bought it? And if he knew it was a stolen gun, how is that different than the cops buying things with money they know was taken through threats and coercion from the people who rightfully earned it? Theft is theft and benefiting from stolen goods is still wrong, and it doesn't matter what silly hat (or haircut) you wear.

Psst. Hey buddy, wanna buy a corpse?

Those automated ads on Examiner (and lots of other places) sure do come up with some bizarre things they think people are in the market for.

Here's the ad that was there while I was checking my Examiner column for new comments.

As if that isn't something I could manufacture for myself if I needed one bad enough. Or, maybe it's an ad for a psychic who "helps" the cops find missing people. Or, perhaps they provide freshly-unburied cadavers for home dissection (or re-animation experiments).

It's almost enough to make me click on the stupid ad. But not quite.

Rearranging bus stops on the Titanic

Rearranging bus stops on the Titanic

Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I guess we all do it sometimes, but when government does it (and we therefore pay for it) it is worse than pointless- it is actually harmful.

The Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department is considering moving school bus stops around Albuquerque in an effort to "avoid registered sex offenders". This has so many things wrong it is hard to know where to begin.

First off, not all "registered sex offenders" are actually a danger to kids or anyone else. Many are registered for doing perfectly non-violent consensual things that the State just happens to prohibit. The "list" is a bad joke that destroys lives while it protects no one.

Second, most real, dangerous sexual predators are probably not registered, or even known. To feel otherwise is placing a lot of faith in a flawed process.

Third, people don't necessarily stay in their own neighborhoods, where they are recognized, when they are intent on causing harm. Only a fool robs the bank next door to his house, where he is a regular customer. The same applies to sexual predators. Plus, the kids still have to get to the bus stops. Who knows what lies along their path? Just moving the destination changes nothing.

Fourth, parents need to teach their kids to be aware of their surroundings and to be prepared to defend themselves. Yes, because the children and other students are headed for a government facility it makes carrying an effective self defense tool a "crime". They still have potential improvised weaponry with them at all times and should be taught how to use them. Yet another reason to separate school and state.

Shuffling bus stops will only create a false security at best. False security is more dangerous than the paranoia that precedes it.

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

Kidnapped over a plant- only 'reasonable' to the stupid, evil, or insane

Kidnapped over a plant- only 'reasonable' to the stupid, evil, or insane

Browsing through the Albuquerque news I saw the headline announcing that two Albuquerque women had been caught crossing the "border" with drugs. Then I read a bit farther, and .... oh, it wasn't drugs after all. It was marijuana. That's when it hit me: I don't even think "drug" when I think of cannabis.

It's a PLANT, people. That's all. All plants contain a multitude of chemicals, some more interesting than others. Some of those chemicals might reasonably be called "drugs" once they are processed and refined, but a plant is not a "drug". No matter what the State's drug warriors might claim in their flimsy lies.

To kidnap people for possessing a plant, even 500 pounds of it, is absurd. It would be laughable if the prohibition didn't destroy so many innocent lives. It is long past time for this nonsense to STOP.

Added clarification: The comments indicate I need to clear something up.
I am not showing favoritism to marijuana. The same would apply if it had been 500 pounds of poppies or coca leaves. Until the specific chemicals are isolated, purified, and refined the plant is not a "drug"- it is a plant. Funny thing though... I never hear of a "bust" of THC like I hear the drug warriors bragging about stealing quantities of cocaine.

However, it is just as wrong- just as evil- to kidnap people for possessing refined heroin, cocaine, meth, or any other substance the authoritards prohibit. There is absolutely no excuse for prohibition that holds up for consistent, decent human beings.

The War on Drugs is ridiculous in all its forms and is based on the pure evil belief that it is "good" or "necessary" to control what others do with their life and body. It needs to end. Now!

Man takes responsibility for his own life and gets punished

Man takes responsibility for his own life and gets punished

An Albuquerque man has killed an intruder, being stabbed twice in the process, and for this the Albuquerque Police Department thanks him by charging him with a probation violation. Why do some people still call cops when attacked?

I was wondering why he stabbed the intruder rather than using a more adequate weapon like a firearm, but I suppose if he is on probation, effective weapons are prohibited to him, as the State sees no value in his life and safety. Fortunately for him he was able to get the intruder's knife away from him and serve justice with it himself.

I wonder what sort of offense has gotten him entangled in the government's "justice" system and resulted in probation, and what violation he was found committing when police responded to the attack. As is usually the case, the mainstream media has neglected to include this critical information.

I sincerely hope his act of justifiable and good violence in killing his attacker is not why the LEOs charged him with a violation. If he is being persecuted for a victimless act that the State calls a "crime", and then charged with violating his probation for a responsible act, then he is innocent and I hope he opts for a jury trial, and I hope the jury knows their responsibility to judge the "law" as well as the "facts of the case", regardless of any jury-tampering committed by the judge in his "instructions to the jury".

Don't forget my books, and find the new announcement on my website!

Lower your expectations so you can declare success

This morning, on a trip to the zoo, my daughter latched onto another kid that she decided was her BFF the moment she saw her. So, having nothing better to do and no reason to object, I let her follow the girl and her mom around. The girl's mom was on her phone most of the time anyway.

The main reason I mention this, though, is that the mom was wearing a T-shirt that said (as near as I can remember): "President Obama- Mission Accomplished!"

Really? Talk about having low expectations!

I was shocked at Bushie's delusion during his "Mission Accomplished" photo op aboard the naval vessel back during the early days of the Crusades, Part Infinity. But, at least he had accomplished something he thought was vital (destroying Liberty in America and replacing it with despotism and Big Brother while invading scary places he couldn't find on a map and having his tools kill swarthy ferriners).

But I really have to wonder what "The Mission" was that was accomplished by Obama. Just becoming president? Breaking a record number of campaign promises in record time without any of his followers noticing? Getting a galactic-sized ego so fast without his head exploding? Or, maybe, just keeping so many of his followers fooled for this long. I guess that is quite an accomplishment. Lincoln has still done better on that account, though.

Old Town's crime spike: the solution suggests itself

Old Town's crime spike: the solution suggests itself

There has been a recent increase in theft and vandalism in Albuquerque's Old Town. In response, APD has increased its horse patrols. It is suggested that "[o]fficers on horseback may look like part of the historical tourist attraction", but this would only be the case if they wore Old West style clothing rather than 21st Century Police-State uniforms.

So, I have a suggestion. Why not let them dress the part? The modern uniform adds nothing positive, while returning to a more respectable era, at least in appearance, might have a psychological effect on would-be bad guys. Then, adding to the historical nature of the neighborhood, encourage shop owners to wear sidearms as well.

Delusional merchants, showing a remarkable lack of awareness of reality, say that as long as they see the cops around, they feel safe. Instead of massaging their "feelings", why not actually increase their safety? Remind them that their safety, and their property, is their responsibility.

Irritated at Examiner.com?

For those of you who have trouble with all of Examiner.com's pop-ups and ads and various other annoyances, I have good news.

I have finished copying all my older Examiner columns, in their entirety, to this blog. Everything older than a week old is here now. As I post a new column, I go ahead and copy the column from 7 days ago to this site to keep up.

If you don't mind, go ahead and click on the link that goes to my Examiner column to send a bit of coin my direction, but you don't have to bother to read it there.


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

APD entrapment scheme canceled

APD entrapment scheme canceled

Downtown Albuquerque LEOs have canceled their "abandoned backpack" entrapment scheme.

I have to admit, if I had found the Albuquerque Police Department's "abandoned" backpack I would have been "arrested" under the guidelines they were following. Because, while I would have tried to find the owner, I would never have considered taking the backpack to the ABQ police station, or handing it over to some anonymous cop I happened to see, except as an absolute last resort- if no owner information could have been found anywhere at all. If I found a lost backpack, it is my responsibility. Plus, if the backpack contained something "illegal" I would not want to expose the owner to possible punishment.

A few years ago I found a large brief case in the middle of the road in the very small town near where I lived. It seemed obvious to me that the brief case had fallen off someone's car. It had a combination lock but I didn't try to open it. I looked for any markings or names on the outside that would indicate who it might belong to. Since I was on my way to work, I left the brief case in my car until the end of the day. For this delay, I would have been arrested if this had been part of the APD entrapment program.

As it ended up, I did take it to the town's chief of police (and only cop), whom I knew (and who would have probably simply kept any prohibited substances found inside without making an "arrest"). He asked me what was in the case and I told him I hadn't tried to open it. So, he tried the latch and it wasn't locked. He opened it and we went through it looking for a clue to the owner's identity. The contents were for a local business. He knew who it belonged to. A few days later he told me that the owner of the brief case was very grateful and wanted to give me a reward. I never did get the reward, though, and the man was murdered, apparently by his business partner, a few months later. Reward or not, I know I did the right thing.

How could the APD know that a person who finds an abandoned backpack and walks off with it isn't going to try to find the owner later, when they have the time to spend on the investigation? Assume the worst of people and they will usually meet your expectations.

Drunk city employees face new policy

Drunk city employees face new policy

Apparently there is such a big problem with Albuquerque city employees driving drunk that the mayor had to conjure up a new policy to deal with it. And yet, he seems to have made certain to leave some wiggle-room for those "important" enough to warrant special treatment.

Supposedly, now if a city employee is arrested and charged with DWI, they won't be allowed to drive on the job for a while, and they might lose their job altogether. However, notice the "...and charged..." qualifier. As we have seen in some other cases, people with connections can be picked up by Law Enforcement, obviously drunk, and yet somehow the charges are forgotten, unless the incident becomes public.

If there is no harm, there is no real crime. If there is harm, then drunk or sober doesn't matter. Restitution is owed to the injured party or their survivors.


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

LEO haircut inspires laughter and well-deserved ridicule

You know that absurd "hair style" adopted by the new militarized breed of LEO? The little oval patch of short hair perched on top of an otherwise shaved head? It is nice they have chosen to identify themselves as parasites even when otherwise out of uniform so we don't accidentally mistake them for good guys. But it is hard to resist laughing everytime I see one of those ridiculous, and butt-ugly, hair berets. As you can tell, I have been thinking up names to describe it.

Some others I have come up with include:

Thug rug.
Scalp badge.
Swagger patch.
Taser doily.
Head pubes.
Cop top.

What makes downtown ABQ 'violent'?

What makes downtown ABQ 'violent'?

The question: Is downtown Albuquerque safe? The answer: Of course it is. The only danger is to people who are in downtown Albuquerque.

In spite of an admission of a "rash of violence" recently, the downtown LEO handlers claim "the current policing strategy is working". That's just funny!

If there has been a rash of violence, and that violence is not violence used in defense of life and property against credible threats, then obviously the current strategy is not helping the situation, if that were even the LEOs' goal.

Cops cause crime! More cops, or more visible cops, will never, ever solve the problem. Their presence makes many people shirk their own responsibility and think someone else will do their job for them. Wherever you are it is your responsibility to watch out for yourself. This involves being aware and armed. If you have it in you, you can also make it your responsibility to look out for those around you. A cop's job is to make sure you obey the State. "Sit down and shut up! Stop bothering Big Brother and hand over your wallet." This is antithetical to peace and liberty. The better way is in your hands.

Thomas Jefferson's secession manifesto

Thomas Jefferson's secession manifesto

I fully support the various state secession movements that have sprung up around the US (even as I disagree with many of their reasons). Not that I think a state, county, or city government is any more legitimate than a federal government, but because to solve a problem, it often helps to break it into more manageable pieces. It also gives me hope that these movements will eventually become an annoying distraction to the feds.

Authoritarians, especially those who are government extremists, may claim it is not "legal" to secede. They may point to the Civil War's result as proof of their position. They would be dead wrong according to America's primary founding document.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [securing the individual's unalienable Rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

This doesn't give us the right "to alter or to abolish" a government any more than the Bill of Rights gives us the rights listed there; it recognizes a right that has always existed in all humans everywhere at all times. I would go further than even that and say that people, individuals, have the right to ignore, alter, or abolish any government that they feel is not working in their best interest, even if it has not yet become openly destructive to their "unalienable Rights", which include ("...among these are..."), but are not limited to, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". By the time a government has actually become destructive to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" it may be too late to divorce that government peaceably.

The first option, and the most peaceful, is to ignore the offenders. If this fails it can still be a peaceful option to alter that government in order to remove the violations it has enshrined in its body of "laws" and daily operations. The very last option, one that can be as peaceful or as violent as the government's employees choose, is to abolish that government. Whether these last two can be done peacefully or not depends on those who work for and support that offending government. Will they lay down their arms and step aside when ordered to, or will they fight to keep their ill-gotten power?

The question is, do you know of any government, anywhere on Earth, that has not become destructive to "unalienable Rights", including, but not limited to, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? If those governments violently resist being ignored or altered, then they leave the people no alternative but to abolish them. Don't like the implications? Take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
____________________________

An Albuquerque church is spreading the message that drug abuse can have bad consequences. As if that is a secret. Ignoring the fact that everyone already knows this, they are using live drama to illustrate the dangers: "It shows where a life of drugs will lead, like premature death or prison." Forget the fact that prison is NOT a consequence of drug abuse, but of drug prohibition. As is the case in a large percentage of the premature deaths attributed to drug abuse, as well.

Abusing drugs, or anything else, is stupid, but prohibition is evil. It would be nice, and much more honest, if the church would address that issue as well.

The pastor is also spreading a dishonest message that could well backfire. He is quoted as saying "Our whole message is make a change, and that change will cause you to have a great future." There are no guarantees, and if people who are in need and hurting, the kind susceptible to both drug abuse and religious messages, find that their future is not as great as promised, they may fall back into old patterns that could hurt them. Honesty is better. Tell them they are responsible for their lives; that bad choices can result in bad consequences; that no one is obligated to rescue them from their choices, but that there is no guarantee that good choices will make their future "sunshine and roses".
___________________________

While writing this column on the Declaration of Independence, I was amused to notice one of the enumerated grievances used as justification for secession from Great Britain. The people who are the strongest advocates of “immigration control” would find themselves in the position of having the founders of America, whom they claim to revere, opposed to their efforts:

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose
obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others
to encourage their migrations hither..." [Emphasis mine]

Wave that in some Tea Partier's face!



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

Kidnapper injured by his victim- guess who is in trouble

Kidnapper injured by his victim- guess who is in trouble

The government's tools, fools, and cheerleaders just don't get it.

The news stories say an Albuquerque police officer was hospitalized after he was "attacked" by a person he was arresting. That's unlikely and almost impossible.

Let's be honest- an "arrest" is a kidnapping by a government employee who is on the clock. It is "legal", but it is still an initiation of force unless the "suspect" actually attacked the LEO (or another person present at the scene) before the arrest was set in motion. A forceful resistance to a kidnapping (or any other initiation of force) is self-defense, and self-defense is never an "attack". It is a response to an attack.

If the person being kidnapped had done nothing to harm any other person- if he was being arrested for violating some counterfeit "law"; often known as "victimless crimes"- then he was within his basic human rights to fight off the kidnapper as soon as he knew an arrest was intended. And to continue to attempt to escape throughout the ordeal. Even if it wasn't the smartest move he could have made.

Of course, I have no idea what the person had actually done to trigger the State's actions. Perhaps he is a violent thug who steals from orphans. Perhaps he smokes prohibited salad. That information isn't seen as important to the narrative. Instead we are supposed to automatically empathize with the injured kidnapper. Sorry, but that is not automatic and I'd need some critical information, which is lacking, before I could do that. I already know for certain that the kidnapper receives stolen property in the form of his paycheck. Is the other guy that bad? As reported, it still appears to be an act of self-defense against a kidnapper. One for which his punishment will be swift and sure, I am certain.

The Left's favorite whine to libertarians

The Left's favorite whine to libertarians

Guess which comment from "the left" irritates me the most. Anytime any liberty-respecting writer makes a point critical of Obama and his tyrannical proclivities, some lefty will pipe up: "Where were you during the eight years of Bush?"

I'll tell you where I was. Right here opposing, either in writing or in how I live my life, every single evil act he committed. Just as I am with Obama. And every other libertarian/anarchist/sovereign individual was doing the same thing; some much louder and longer than me. What I want to ask these myopic "progressives" ("regressives" would be a lot more accurate, since what they really advocate is a return to the worst traits of failed governments of the past) is "I have been here all along. Where did you go when Obama revealed himself to be 'Bush III'?"

Of course, I'd also like to point out that being "of the left" is a position so full of internal inconsistencies as to lose any chance of "working" in the real world, but I'll be nice and let them figure that out for themselves. Just as those "of the right" will have to do. Someday.

I don't worry so much about government acting like government these days. To expect otherwise would be delusional. In that case I might as well become a "Tea Partier". There is only one "Tea Party" worth your time, which hasn't been derailed by "more-of-the-same-ism", and you can find them and get involved without moving from where you sit: The Boston Tea Party. For the most part I prefer to avoid and ignore government when I can, and I certainly don't wish to spend my time thinking about it. I'll warn others of things I see that I think they need to be aware of, and point out the real solution that respects individual rights and liberty, but life is too precious to let The State spoil it.
________________________

An Albuquerque man is being sought after supposedly forcing a teen into prostitution in his home. It would be more accurate to describe her situation as slavery, rather than prostitution. I seriously doubt she was getting any money from her efforts, which puts the lie to the "prostitution" charge. It would have been just as wrong for him to force her to wash dishes for others while he kept the money she earned. I'm supposing the State is reluctant to charge people with slavery; that would be self-incriminating for the government, since most of its actions are aimed at enslaving the population and forcing us to support the government with the labors of our bodies.

Climate change hysteria and 'fixes' cause harm

Climate change hysteria and 'fixes' cause harm

One common justification for the "climate change" hysteria, is that even if the climate change believers turn out to be wrong; either that there is climate change, or that it is caused by human activities, there is little harm in taking the prescribed corrective measures. Bunk!

Little harm? The "solution" for "anthropogenic global climate change" (AGCC), demanded by the collectivists who falsely call themselves "environmentalists", destroys the ability of regular people to earn a living. It puts the world's very worst polluters, governments, in charge of telling everyone else how to live, and punishing those who disobey. It does worse than sending humanity back to the stone age, since at least back then they had fire with which to cook food, light the dark, and heat themselves. It sets up a new caste system, where the politically powerful, rich, and/or connected get to maintain a modern lifestyle, while "the little people" are expected to sacrifice most of the advances of the past several hundred years for "the common good", while still being expected to not be as "messy" as our forebears. It also terrifies some people much like the "nuclear annihilation" threat of an earlier generation did. That is an awful lot of harm.

Modern society is remarkably clean. Only government deals and favoritism (corporatism) keep the big polluters (BP) from taking full individual responsibility, and making full restitution, for their mistakes and misdeeds. The modern individual leaves less mess behind than the primitive individual did. It is just that there are an awful lot of us humans now, and we are being artificially forced, by government fear and inertia, to stay in our planetary cradle instead of being allowed to naturally spread out from Earth.

The best way to do what you can for the environment hasn't changed: Don't soil your own nest, and take full, individual, responsibility for the mess you do make when it harms the property or lives of others.

In the interest of full disclosure, I would be happy to live in a cave under primitive conditions. Or in a tipi or a dugout. No electricity or running water (or, as I used to tell my first ex-wife "we'd have electricity during thunderstorms, and running water when it rains....") The thought doesn't bother me at all. However, I know most people don't feel that way. Many people depend on modern advances for their very lives. I have no business taking their non-coercive choices from them. Neither does anyone else.

_____________________________

You would think that if government can do any good, it would be able to prevent bad things from happening right under its nose.

A security guard at the Department of Human Services in Albuquerque called 911 because of a woman who was said to be beating her baby by slamming him against a wall inside the women's restroom. What good is a security guard if he is not allowed to provide security? One spokesperson claimed the guard was not authorized to intervene because he is not a police officer. Supposedly this goes for anyone who is not a LEO and who sees an attack occurring. “Certainly in an incident like this, they do need to act quickly, as well. But they are not police officers. So they need to call law enforcement immediately." Has no one heard of "citizen's arrest"? Does no one step up to protect a victim from an attacker anymore? At one time the police had no authority beyond that held by the rest of the population. It was simply their "job" to do what the rest of us could do on our own. It needs to be that way again, if that has been foolishly changed by "law". After all, this is why "cops cause crime".

Odds and Ends for Tuesday

Odds and Ends for Tuesday

For every situation there is a smart way to rebel, and there are lots of stupid ways to rebel. I don't always know the difference myself, but I see some people who seem committed to rebel in the most stupid ways possible. They seem to be saying "Here I am! Notice me and strike me down! Quickly, before I can accomplish anything!" It really isn't for me to judge how another person decides to rebel or comply, as long as they don't initiate force, fraud, or theft. It just makes me wonder- Is it useful to sacrifice yourself without making any gain? Who am I to judge what another sees as "gain"? I personally see a lot of value in having lots of living people exercising their liberty and withdrawing consent from the "system". Sure, if you are dead you are not consenting, but you really aren't much of an irritation to the Rulers that way, either.
They'll still tax your corpse.
_____________________________

If you can't find any way to resolve your issue other than coercion or initiating force, including using a "law", you have failed.

What can you use to accomplish your goals instead of a State, a government, or other types of coercive evil?

If you want to accomplish something, do you automatically think of a way to do it using coercion? Or theft or fraud? Or, do you not even consider those things, knowing that they are wrong even when convenient and you "really, really, want to do this"?
____________________________

In a previous column I ended by saying "My job is to offer a map for your use."
MamaLiberty commented "Who made this your job? "

Well, there have been many times in my life when I have taken on tasks that I was not asked to undertake, but that were within my rights to work on. Usually without any sort of pay or recognition. Sometimes even to be met with scorn or opposition. It is not what I'd prefer, but it does seem to be the way things are.
____________________

Albuquerque has another candidate for "Mother of the Year". Her 6-year old autistic son was found wandering outside, in the rain, after midnight, and she denied being his mother until her tattoo of his name on her neck gave her away.

I would bet she may be willing to give him up to someone who might actually care about him. Maybe a monetary trade could be made to grease the wheels. "Laws" prevent this for "the child's own good" of course, but how could that be worse than being handed over to government and placed in foster care or even back with a mother who might not really want him? Let real, mutually beneficial solutions be found; not blocked.
______________________

Don't forget to check out my books, including how to get them for free. I am switching the free ebook versions to Lulu.com. I think that may work better than the other way I was doing it.

If the State needs help, why bother with the State?

If the State needs help, why bother with the State?

I was noticing a story in the Albuquerque news about the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad receiving donations from businesses and individuals to help repair or replace the trestle that was damaged in a fire. The railroad is "owned" by the states of New Mexico and Colorado.
This brings up a point. If businesses and individuals are needed to donate money to help a state-"owned" attraction keep going in a crisis, why is the state "needed" at all? Obviously people think the railroad is important enough to help it over a rough spot. Why shouldn't these same people profit from the operation of the railroad more directly? Cut the state out of the equation.

Get my books, for FREE!

I am now offering all my books as free downloads. You are still allowed to pay me if you want, of course.

Go to "My Books" for the download buttons.

The file hosting site I'm using sucks oily gravel, but it is free for me to use. I can't afford any more expenses after paying for my website and various other projects related to my liberty activism.

Please let me know of a better file hosting site, that is free and doesn't expire, and I'll switch to it as soon as I can.

UPDATE: OK, at the suggestion of Mr. Paine I am in the process of switching them to Lulu.com. Still free, though. Not sure why I didn't think of that since I had originally looked at publishing through Lulu.

The government's 'thief protection program'

The government's 'thief protection program'

My recent Albuquerque news link, about the robbers who have been shooting their robbery victims for no apparent reason, elicited a comment by "Roger Young" that really stuck in my head, and keeps reverberating there. He says:

The police advice to victims (to give robbers what they want) reflects the same
attitude the state, in general, encourages among its citizen-serfs: “Don’t
resist. Pay your taxes. Obey our commands.” What is the state but just another
bandit looking to steal our property AND our freedom.

He is so right. It makes me wonder if, deep down, the agents of the State don't realize what they really are, and seek to protect themselves by indoctrinating us all on how to behave in all similar situations. It sure sounds like they do.

Instead, I suggest staying alert and aware, and treating all robbers and aggressors the same. If they don't like that, they can go straight

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

(Notice the "missing" period at the end. Did I mean "go straight"? Or did I mean they can go straight to somewhere that I "forgot" to write down to complete the sentence? You decide.)

Government is evidence of failure

Government is evidence of failure

Suppose that every government official and enforcer, from the president to your friendly neighborhood Taser-monkey, suddenly gets a conscience and eliminates themselves from the category of living beings as a long-overdue gesture toward decency.

Would you celebrate by looting, raping, and killing? No? Would your family members take the opportunity to act on secret desires to start doing these things- the values and principles of a lifetime tossed out the window like a squashed spider? Or, if your family isn't being held in check by government guns in their faces, perhaps it is your friends who are the reason that the 5000-year long failure of externally-imposed government is still believed to be a necessity. They must be the ones you fear if the threat of arrest or death by Duly-Authorized Coercion Professionals weren't a guaranteed result of being a "criminal". Right? No? Well, I'm sure most people would blame "others".

Unless you would stand by and let the suddenly unshackled bad guys live out their coercive fantasies, what is the danger?

Sure, you wouldn't bother, or even be able, to enforce the unnumbered millions of "necessary" counterfeit "laws" that the Rulers have seen fit to impose on me, but you'd be able to recognize when I was doing something actually wrong; initiating force, fraud, trespassing, or theft. And you'd have the right and the ability to take the initiative to stop me, exactly like those recently-extinct enforcers would have possibly done. In fact, you and I would be better able to do that effectively, since "Average Joe (or Jo)" is the person present when these acts are committed.
Without the silly and evil anti-defense "laws" making people second-guess whether being attacked now by the "criminal" is safer than being attacked later by "The Law", more people would be inclined to do what is right.

Clinging to the notion of government is an admission that you wouldn't do the right thing in a crisis. You want someone else to carry that burden for you. Yet, as has been clearly demonstrated since the dawn of history, that doesn't work. Either each of us does what is right to the best of our own ability, or it simply doesn't get done. Hiring others to do it for us is abject failure. Government is the physical evidence of that failure. Take back civilization.
__________________________

From the Albuquerque news comes this story out of Santa Fe. Robbers who were given what they demanded, "thank" their victims by shooting them. Killing some.

Cops and other anti-self-defense opinionizers are always insisting that victims of theft "just give the robbers what they want", suggesting that cooperation will keep you safe. "Your money isn't worth your life" they say. However, some thieves don't "just" want your money, as these two thugs demonstrate. Anyone willing to steal from you should be assumed to also have no objections to killing you if it suits their purpose. Don't take the chance. Fight back with all the determined violence of a cornered wildcat. But with more focus.

Trespasser- the definition

A trespasser is a person who is present on property that belongs to someone else without that owner's permission.

It doesn't matter if the trespasser is a transient (with or without government permission papers) "just passing through" or an agent sent by the government for some "legal" purpose.

If the trespasser cuts a fence or kicks down a door to gain entry this is above and beyond the trespass; it is another wrong in addition to the trespass. Destruction is not a prerequisite to trespassing.

It is not possible to trespass on "government property" since government can't actually "own" anything. Government doesn't possess anything it did not steal from the real owner, or "purchase" with stolen (including counterfeited) money. A thief does not own that which he possesses, and has no say in what is done with that property.


**********

Follow the path of Liberty- don't stray right or left

Follow the path of Liberty- don't stray right or left

The world is an interesting place. Not a smooth, featureless plain, but a varied landscape of hills, mountains, swamps, rivers, oceans, and cities. And for that I am glad. Many people are under the mistaken impression that the best path is straight. No, the best path follows liberty, and it must go around some obstacles, over some, and through others. The path that we each take through the world can wander back and forth. We will cross other paths as we travel along our journey, but all others lead to less-wondrous destinations.

Sometimes that path to liberty goes to the "right" and sometimes it goes to the "left", but it is always taking the shortest distance to liberty. We can call this path "libertarianism" among other things. It is the only path you can follow and not be doing something wrong to someone.
When you are trying to follow the path of liberty, any detour from that path- to the left or to the right- will end up getting you lost. The "Right" is content to follow the path as long as it heads right, and the "Left" is content to follow the path as long as it heads left. Both wander astray when they continue right or left beyond the edges of the path. They continue on their set course, in spite of where the trail lies, and end up in the brambles when confronted with certain issues. This is unfortunate and self-defeating. It always leads to authoritarianism and tyranny.

As long as someone is not harming any other innocent individual no one has a right to try to use coercion to force them to alter their course. Don't steal, defraud, trespass, or attack anyone- and as long as a person is not doing one of these things, leave them alone or you will be the guilty one. In order to do one of those bad things, you must get off the path to liberty somewhere.
Stray too far and you may have trouble seeing the path from where you stand when, or if, you realize how far you've wandered. My job is to offer a map for your use.
_______________________

Three people are accused of stealing an elderly Albuquerque woman's money. That is terrible. What is the difference between what they did, and what the thousands of people who "work for government" do? Taking money that belongs to another is still theft, no matter how you attempt to justify it.

Examiner.com pay: cut again

I have noticed that my pay from Examiner has been cut once again.

It started out as a dependable 1 cent per page view, although Examiner denied this was the case. They claimed it just kinda worked out that way. Usually.

Then it was reduced to 9/10 of a cent per page view for a while. During this time they began paying a dollar per column, with a maximum of $5 per week. That was nice. It more than made up for the reduction in per-view pay.

However, recently I have seen my per page view pay drop to 7/10 of a cent. Yes, I am still getting more there than I would be making otherwise, and getting more page views there than my blog generally got (other than the "Hot Slut of the Day" spike).

I'm not planning to quit, but it does take away some of the motivation for producing columns.


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

Harm- the definition

"Harm" is damage. Physical processes can cause harm, and intentional or accidental acts by individuals can cause harm.

It can be physical such as scrapes, bruises, broken bones, or other manifestations of applied force.

It can be financial such as a loss of your money or other property through theft, fraud, or damage to your property. Being successful while others are not is not a case of you harming them.

It could be emotional if you are subjected to psychological abuse while being held prisoner and not allowed to escape, but it does not include "being offended" when escape is physically possible.

When individuals cause intentional harm, evil has been committed. Accidental harm incurs a debt, just as intentional harm does. Restitution is a proper way to settle those debts.

All harm hurts, but not everything that hurts is harm. Some hurtful things do not cause actual harm. Many things that hurt and many things that cause harm are just the result of living in the universe by the laws of physics.

Government's fear of marijuana causes shortage even when legal

Government's fear of marijuana causes shortage even when legal

Can government approval make one individual thing good while another identical thing, only lacking this approval, is "so bad" it is worth committing murder over? No. But government's tools, fools, and cheerleaders believe their approval has this power. Immigration, the War on (some) Drugs, "gun control"... the list of examples crosses every human activity.

This is my 420th Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner column, so, appropriately enough, it deals with marijuana. Medical marijuana in particular.

Because the state of New Mexico is so hesitant to license medical marijuana growers, the supply can't meet the demand. Even for those few people (2000 in the entire state) that the state decides "legally" deserve the medical benefits of using marijuana. That's evil.

The state medicine rationers are afraid of letting "too much" be grown, for fear some might find its way into the hands of people who are without the "proper" permits. Yet, the people with the permits can't get the amount they need, so they are forced to do without or go to providers who are not government-approved; risking false "arrest" or worse. This ridiculous keystone cops melodrama would be funny if the same government that licenses patients and providers didn't, on a regular basis, murder people who use or provide marijuana without the proper permission slips. Drug prohibition kills. All prohibition kills.

A marijuana plant doesn't know if it is state-approved or not, and the paperwork makes no difference in the medicinal properties- except in cases where government-bred strains are too weak to work. A license or a permit doesn't change the right or wrong of anything, ever. And, although it is not relevant to the discussion at hand, neither does medical need or recreational desire. You own your own body and life, and can determine what goes into it, or you own nothing and are the property of another. Who owns you?

A new weapon in the war on liberty

A new weapon in the war on liberty

You have probably noticed the fetish LEOs have for flashlights. It is more serious than you thought. Now that flashlight could also be secretly recording everything you say and do. The first place in the Albuquerque area that these privacy-invasion wands have been admitted to being used is with the Rio Rancho Police Department.

Cops are always anxious to spy on you and me, yet, as has been seen in so many places in so many ways, if you take video of cops, they will often "arrest" you. Or worse. Many people across the country have been charged with "wiretapping" when recording the misdeeds of cops.
Sometimes the charges are dropped and replaced with some other lie if the cops realize they can't get away with the original bogus charge. Just look at the case of George Donnelly for confirmation. If it is wrong for us to do to them, it is wrong for them to do to us.

Besides, cops, like all government employees and agents, are supposed to be our servants- we outrank them and they seem to have forgotten that fact. The most pathetic drunk passed out in the gutter outranks the biggest swaggering cop on the force. By leaps and bounds.

I wonder, if a cop records something inside your car, when you did not consent to a search, isn't that illegal? Not that I expect government to abide by the laws that limit it (while it demands you and me to obey the "laws" that it imposes on us).

I recommend following the link to the KOB TV story and learn to recognize these new tools of tyranny. Just in case one is ever aimed at you. I wish to thank KOB for exposing this secret weapon in the State's war against liberty.

Albuquerque firefighters have an opportunity now

Albuquerque firefighters have an opportunity now

Due to the recent pay cutbacks, some Albuquerque firefighters are choosing to retire early. That's their decision to make, but I wonder if they have considered getting together to form their own, private, fire fighting organization.

I realize the "law" probably prevents it in some way. Just imagine if it didn't, though.

They could offer their services and experience to customers, both fighting and preventing fires and fire damage. They could experiment with different options and discover which works best, and let customers buy the services they want.

Those customers would still be forced to pay for the city-provided "service" that they no longer needed, though, just as home-schoolers and those who choose private schools are still forced to support a system that has failed and that they don't want or need. That's the problem with a coercive system that doesn't allow competition or an "opt out". It is also why most "public services" are unresponsive to actual customer needs; the pay doesn't depend on customer satisfaction, but only on the fact that it is there and you are going to pay for it or else.

Just remember: for any problem, there is always a liberty-respecting solution. Government may prohibit it, but that's government's flaw, not the solution's.


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

Authorities compound tragedy for ABQ woman

Authorities compound tragedy for ABQ woman

And this provides justice.... how? A toddler left in a van in the Albuquerque heat, for over two hours, has died. This is a tragedy. I can't imagine how any parent could be so stupid and negligent. Things like this make me very angry.

What I really don't understand, though, is just how charging the mother with a crime fixes anything.

Do the authorities really think this will teach her a lesson so she won't ever do this again? Or do they think this will warn other parents not to repeat this woman's mistake, as if people don't think it will never happen to them? Do they believe this will bring the dead child back or "give her peace"? Will this improve the life of the woman's surviving child in some nebulous way? Or does none of this compare to the importance of "upholding the law"?

Whatever justification is used, the authorities show their mindless stupidity every time they add punishment on top of tragedy. Not every mistake, even really horrible ones leading to suffering and death, "need" to become legal matters. I don't believe for a second this woman intended to harm or kill her child. For The State, the prime "provider" of tragedy and death throughout history on a global scale, to self-righteously seek revenge on an individual who is already suffering more than I can imagine, is sick.


Added: On the original column at Examiner.com, MamaLiberty added this insightful comment: "In thirty years of nursing I've seen a great many stupid and lethal mistakes. I don't recall a single one that could have been prevented by sending others who made that mistake to prison."
I have never seen it expressed better!

The nature of 'rights'- Do you have 'Second Amendment rights'?

The nature of 'rights'- Do you have 'Second Amendment rights'?

I suppose it is time to once again remind people what rights are, and what the purpose of the Bill of Rights was.

I say this because someone has posted a comment demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue what a right is, and don't understand what the Bill of Rights had to do with rights; specifically the right to own and to carry arms mentioned in the Second Amendment.

A right is something you can do, without asking permission from anyone, simply because you are alive. Anything that does not violate another person's identical and equal rights is within your rights to do, whether trivial or monumentally important. A right can not be limited, regulated, restricted, licensed, or taxed. It can only be respected or violated. A right does not place an obligation on anyone else on your behalf, and "having to put up with being offended" by your actions does not equal an "obligation" on anyone else. In other words, as long as you are not harming or threatening to harm any innocent person while you exercise your right it doesn't matter how upset, offended, or "scared" someone gets by your actions, they have no right to try to stop you.

The Bill of Rights was misnamed as it did nothing to "give" you rights, but was simply written and ratified to make it illegal for government, at any level (yes, even without the 14th Amendment- read the Constitution if you don't believe me. Article IV, Section 2) to make any "laws" in an attempt to violate anyone's pre-existing rights (a redundant phrase).

You don't have "Second Amendment rights", the government has "Second Amendment limits". That they choose to illegally and illegitimately ignore and violate those limits doesn't affect your rights in the least. It only affects your liberty, which is the freedom to exercise those rights.

Private individuals are not prohibited from violating your rights by the Bill of Rights, but by the nature of rights and by the fact that your rights do not exist at their whim. Their rights do not nullify your rights in any way. Anyone, whether a government thug, a private individual, or an employer, who chooses to violate your rights in any way, using any justification, is not your friend, but a mortal enemy. If they do not trust you as a fully-functional human being with all your rights intact, they do not trust you at all and you should not trust them either.
______________________

Would being armed have saved the victims of the jealous murderer in Albuquerque Monday? There is no way to know, as there seems to have been no warning before the shooting began. One thing that is absolutely certain is that being unarmed, whether by Emcor Corp. policy or through irresponsibility, saved no lives. Your life is in your hands. Protect it.

Murderer ingores rules; people die in ABQ

Murderer ingores rules; people die in ABQ

A person violated the Zero Aggression Principle in Albuquerque and people are dead. I would also be willing to place money on the odds that Emcor, where he shot and killed his victims, has a "no guns at work" (except for "professional security" or LEOs, of course) policy.

The only effect a "no guns" policy ever has is to make certain that a bad guy, who by definition refuses to obey the rules, will have his pick of unarmed targets to kill at his convenience.

Murder is "illegal", yet that didn't stop him. Why would anyone with even a handful of functional neurons inside their cranium think that prohibiting guns to those inclined to obey such stupid policies would make a person intent on killing people change his mind?

It is your responsibility to ensure your own safety. Regardless of rules or "laws" to the contrary. If any person or business doesn't trust you as a fully self-responsible person with all your basic human rights intact, then they do not trust you at all. Avoid these people and places as if your worst enemy were there, because that is the reality of the situation. They value their "feel-good" and "sensible" policies above your life.

Gun control kills again. Will the lesson be learned this time?


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

'Right and wrong' are universal

'Right and wrong' are universal

If an act is right for one person, it is right for everyone, and if it is wrong for one person, it is wrong for everyone. That sounds simple, right? So why is it so hard for statists to grasp? I must conclude it indicates they don't want to understand.

Just take the example of Oscar Grant's murder-by-cop. The cop who killed Grant pulled a gun and shot Grant, who was handcuffed and face-down, in the back. The murderer later claimed he "only" meant to use his Taser on Grant. That would have still been wrong since Grant was cuffed and face-down. When someone is no longer a threat to your life or property, specifically when you have them pinned and cuffed, it is wrong to harm them. Tasers cause harm and can kill (as has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt).

Does anyone honestly believe that had the roles been reversed Mr. Grant would have gotten off with only "2 to 4"? Just imagine if Oscar and some of his friends had cuffed a LEO and put him face-down on the ground, and then simply Tasered him. What consequences would Mr. Grant be facing? What if instead of electro-torturing the cop with a Taser, he had "accidentally" shot and killed him?

In another example an 82 year-old man in Colorado was charged with attempted murder for shooting a thief who was fleeing from him.

As I commented on that article:

His only error was in calling the cops to report the crime.

Cops shoot and
kill people on a daily basis with much flimsier justification- such as a person
who is doing nothing wrong, but simply hesitates to obey an unreasonable order
from a badge bully. If they can charge this man, who was defending his property
rights, with attempted murder, then every cop who has ever shot anyone who
wasn't an immediate lethal threat should also be charged with murder or
attempted murder. Otherwise cops and "the law" are hypocritical beyond
repair.

Cops, if they are to be trusted with weapons AND a badge, must be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us. The consequences for their destructive behavior must be much more harsh than it would be if they were not a LEO. Refusal to hold them fully accountable for their actions is only facilitating our headlong descent into the police state America is becoming.
_______________________________

Speaking of cops never taking any responsibility for their actions, police say they are searching for two suspects who are "believed to be responsible for a high-speed chase" on I-40. So, the cops who were chasing them share zero responsibility for the high-speed chase? Of course.
Move along... nothing to see here.

ABQ cops find stolen property

ABQ cops find stolen property

Albuquerque cops caught a thief with 30 stolen guns. Now the question remains- were those guns returned to the owners, or are they now stolen by the police department instead of the freelance thief? After all, as long as the guns are not back with their owners they are still stolen. If the police still have the guns, then the police are accessories to the theft and are no better than the burglar who originally stole the weapons.

The whole "holding as evidence" excuse is just that: an excuse. Photographs and serial numbers would be just as condemning during a trial- completely sufficient as long as the records were destroyed immediately after the trial. There is no reason to leave the information in the wrong hands where it can be abused.

When a theft occurs, justice demands that the victim be returned to his "pre-violation" condition. This means his guns in his house and no record of what he owns in the computers of the police department. Will there be justice?

Offering libertarian solutions

Offering libertarian solutions


Libertarians are often accused of "whining about government instead of offering solutions". That's just silly. I offer solutions all the time. If statists refuse to hear me, or if they ridicule the solutions I offer, I have still offered solutions.

As they say about leading horses to water; the same applies to people. There is no problem that can't be solved by a liberty-respecting solution. The libertarian solution is usually more immediate than the coercively imposed "solutions" the State prefers, and is cheaper or even free. But, obviously the solution is different. So different that apparently many people tune it out. The real solution means looking at things from a different perspective. Not what's expedient, but what's right.

So the statists refuse to hear and continue to accuse you of never offering solutions. Makes me want to say something about getting the car key out of their ear and listening for a while. Just because they don't want to implement the solutions doesn't mean they aren't real, operational, solutions.

Exposing the problems caused by government, the practice statists call "whining", is also part of the solution. Until you understand that the current path is the source of most of the problems it is hard to choose another path. Until you understand that "this doesn't ever work", and realize that doing even more of the same will not work either, it is difficult to abandon the failed method and try something totally different.

Therefore, I try to expose the fact that the status quo is causing the problems and then offer a way out, in language that most people can understand, without relying on references that would only be understood by the "in-group. Even in my little town full of "religious conservatives" it seems to be making a dent.
__________________________

I see a new report claims that "illegal immigrants" cost Americans $113 billion per year. Yet, reading the article I notice that it isn't the immigrants costing Americans, it is the US government's socialist programs that are costing us. If the theft ended today, the cost would go away. Problem solved.
_______________________

An Albuquerque city councilor wants to take away a homeowners association's authority to enforce rules that require a homeowner to have some type of "lawn" in their front yard.
Personally, I despise "homeowners associations" and "lawns". However, as long as you joined voluntarily and any new rules are only enacted by unanimous consent, it is no one else's business what the rules are. Not even to reduce water usage in the desert. As I have pointed out before, if water is being wasted, it means it is priced below its actual free-market value, and the ABQ water monopoly needs to die. Problem solved.

Authority to license?

Authority to license?

In the latest issue of The Libertarian Enterprise (you do read it weekly, right?), A.X. Perez said, in a letter-to-the-editor exchange regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment: "I might, maybe, concede that people should not own weapons powerful enough to literally blow the planet apart without special licenses."

That statement stopped me in my tracks. Who could possibly have the authority to issue such licenses? Not government, although they will be the ones to claim the authority.

Personally, I don't think people should "own weapons powerful enough to literally blow the planet apart" at all. Neither as individuals nor as a collective of insane individuals we know as "government". Yet, because of cost and difficulty, governments are the only ones actually in possession of such weapons now.

Regardless of who has, or may in the future have, doomsday weaponry, there is no justification for allowing the only ones who currently have them to "permit" or deny them to the rest of us. To pretend that these people have any authority to "license" the rest of us to own any sort of weaponry is crazy. That's like saying your insane uncle can give you permission to lock your door at night to keep him out of your bedroom while you sleep.

Obviously, there would never be any right to use any such weapon as long as you were on Earth. It would be impossible to use it without harming innocent people. That is not the case with guns; even fully-automatic .50 caliber rifles.

*******************
Also, notice my most recent submission to The Libertarian Enterprise, which you may have already caught at my blog.
____________________________

Another reason firefighters should be privatized: so they don't act as agents of the State.
Albuquerque firefighters patrolled the streets inspecting fireworks vendors; looking for violations of fireworks "laws". If anyone inspects the vendors' stands, it should be their insurance company (if any). Does the State not see the irony in regulating the celebration of the biggest anti-government holiday? Does no one see the irony in cooperating?

Fireworks, as explosives, are covered by the Second Amendment; therefore government is prohibited, by law, from making any regulations regarding them. No authority; no "crime".