Welfare withdrawal causes pain to New Mexico families
Parents who have become addicted to one form of welfare are finding themselves suffering withdrawal- or at least have been put on notice that they will be suffering it soon. The state is sending out letters to thousands of families to inform them that their child care assistance is being cut off due to "budget problems" (not enough stolen loot to go around, due to government killing the economy).
That's sad, but that's what happens when you allow government intervention to lead you a long ways down a dead end path. When government suddenly says "This is where we part ways" you will discover just where you have been led. It is a place you would have never gone on your own, but only with the "help" and encouragement of The State holding your hand. The State even actively seeks out people to participate, since "numbers" means money, that is until reality rears its ugly head like it is doing now.
Government intervention in the market, and that is what this is, has stifled or crushed innovative solutions to "child care". No one has an incentive to find new solutions when government is using stolen money to pay parents' child care expenses for them. Plus people make choices, economic and otherwise, based on the assumption that they will not be paying the consequences because of the "safety net" [sic].
This will actually affect only about 28% of the kids in the program- the other 18,000 will still be getting your money. One "development center" in Albuquerque claims they will "lose" 43 children, and may have to cut staff. Yet no one seems to notice that had government not distorted the market, those families, and the threatened employees, would have made other arrangements and would not now be in a bind.
I got into a situation once where I quit my job due to an increase in the cost of child care when my kids' day care center was bought out by a competitor. It would have cost almost exactly what I was earning to keep sending them, and I decided I wasn't going to go to a job and pay someone else to watch my kids for me. Yes, there were "sacrifices" involved but the benefits outweighed them by more than I can express. It was a great decision.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
ABQ "Violent" according to officer
ABQ "Violent" according to officer
"We tend to be somewhat of a violent town." says Albuquerque's Chief Public Safety [sic] Officer. Yet he doesn't realize (or won't publicly acknowledge, anyway) that he and his gang are largely to blame.
So in an effort to "understand" where all this violence comes from, the city will spend your stolen money on an analysis from a "think tank".
Don't analyze it; SOLVE IT!
Stop denying people the liberty to defend themselves and their property with the best tools available.
End the evil and stupid War on (some) Drugs that empowers gangs and other aggressors, both with and without badges.
Those two simple acts would render Albuquerque's violence a bad memory. Problem solved.
"We tend to be somewhat of a violent town." says Albuquerque's Chief Public Safety [sic] Officer. Yet he doesn't realize (or won't publicly acknowledge, anyway) that he and his gang are largely to blame.
So in an effort to "understand" where all this violence comes from, the city will spend your stolen money on an analysis from a "think tank".
Don't analyze it; SOLVE IT!
Stop denying people the liberty to defend themselves and their property with the best tools available.
End the evil and stupid War on (some) Drugs that empowers gangs and other aggressors, both with and without badges.
Those two simple acts would render Albuquerque's violence a bad memory. Problem solved.
Liberty: How can we get there from here?
Liberty: How can we get there from here?
I'm tired, for the moment, of pointing out the failures of statism. They are so obvious it seems silly to keep pointing them out. But, apparently many people refuse to see them, so it remains necessary.
The question that I hope is on your mind at this point would be "How can I help form a society that respects liberty? You know, real liberty; the freedom for each of us to exercise his or her individual rights."
You can only do that one person at a time, by your individual behavior. That's the only way anything, a free society or a tyranny, comes about. However, there are some general trends you can support to help the process along.
If you've been paying attention you will know that a big part of the solution is to acknowledge that the police and "public schools" must end. That one change would go a long ways toward freeing civilization from the grip of tyranny. There is a reason I have focused so much recently on the failures caused directly by "police" and "public schools"- the Albuquerque news is full of these failures on a daily basis. I can't pass up on illustrations that are handed to me so abundantly. Unless you bury your head in the sand you can't ignore the obvious. Just do as I do and take a look at the Albuquerque news (or your local equivalent) and you will see it ... unless you are determined not to. Breaking the hold of these two organs of The State would at least allow people to start thinking for themselves and start acting in self-responsible ways.
Another part of the answer is to stop looking to government for anything. No handouts; no "justice"; no "protection". If you need it, you can't get it from The State, and if only The State can provide it, you don't need it. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you can grow up. Stop believing that government can print "money" backed by nothing but empty promises. If you are forced to accept it and pay "taxes" on it, it isn't money.
I highly recommend "attending" The On Line Freedom Academy to help break free of the delusions that have been carefully cultivated, whether successfully or not, in your mind. It will help you more than you might suspect.
I'm tired, for the moment, of pointing out the failures of statism. They are so obvious it seems silly to keep pointing them out. But, apparently many people refuse to see them, so it remains necessary.
The question that I hope is on your mind at this point would be "How can I help form a society that respects liberty? You know, real liberty; the freedom for each of us to exercise his or her individual rights."
You can only do that one person at a time, by your individual behavior. That's the only way anything, a free society or a tyranny, comes about. However, there are some general trends you can support to help the process along.
If you've been paying attention you will know that a big part of the solution is to acknowledge that the police and "public schools" must end. That one change would go a long ways toward freeing civilization from the grip of tyranny. There is a reason I have focused so much recently on the failures caused directly by "police" and "public schools"- the Albuquerque news is full of these failures on a daily basis. I can't pass up on illustrations that are handed to me so abundantly. Unless you bury your head in the sand you can't ignore the obvious. Just do as I do and take a look at the Albuquerque news (or your local equivalent) and you will see it ... unless you are determined not to. Breaking the hold of these two organs of The State would at least allow people to start thinking for themselves and start acting in self-responsible ways.
Another part of the answer is to stop looking to government for anything. No handouts; no "justice"; no "protection". If you need it, you can't get it from The State, and if only The State can provide it, you don't need it. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you can grow up. Stop believing that government can print "money" backed by nothing but empty promises. If you are forced to accept it and pay "taxes" on it, it isn't money.
I highly recommend "attending" The On Line Freedom Academy to help break free of the delusions that have been carefully cultivated, whether successfully or not, in your mind. It will help you more than you might suspect.
Monday, September 20, 2010
ABQ Cops, once again, show their true colors
ABQ Cops, once again, show their true colors
The reptilian brain of The State, in a gross display of ignorance and aggression, demands a "permit" from a man who was not only not harming anyone, but actually doing good. Then they kidnap him and threaten those around him who witnessed their unjustified attack. Fortunately he was recording the encounter with these gang members.
Michael Herrick was "arrested" by Albuquerque Police for giving food to the homeless without a "permit". What a dreadful act of aggression and terrorism! Right? Still think cops are the good guys?
Then, because he did not immediately bow down and obey their illegal orders, they "arrested" him on the bogus charge of "refusing to obey an officer" as well. Guess what, no one has an obligation to obey counterfeit orders that violate the law, as this order did. The LEOs may still kill you for your lack of obedience, so your actions, and their consequences, are your responsibility. However, by their actions, the cops show themselves to be the bad guys; the thugs with badges.
On top of all this punishment, the bad(ge) guys added the made-up charge of "inciting a riot". Funny, I never heard any news reports of this "riot" occurring. Maybe they imagined it.
The vermin in blue are your servants. Not your masters. Out-of-control servants should be fired. And, since the position leads invariably to this sort of abuse, replaced with nothing. How will they learn their place if we keep acting as though they have authority that they did not earn? If they want our respect, they had better start earning it. Now! This isn't the way for them to do that.
The reptilian brain of The State, in a gross display of ignorance and aggression, demands a "permit" from a man who was not only not harming anyone, but actually doing good. Then they kidnap him and threaten those around him who witnessed their unjustified attack. Fortunately he was recording the encounter with these gang members.
Michael Herrick was "arrested" by Albuquerque Police for giving food to the homeless without a "permit". What a dreadful act of aggression and terrorism! Right? Still think cops are the good guys?
Then, because he did not immediately bow down and obey their illegal orders, they "arrested" him on the bogus charge of "refusing to obey an officer" as well. Guess what, no one has an obligation to obey counterfeit orders that violate the law, as this order did. The LEOs may still kill you for your lack of obedience, so your actions, and their consequences, are your responsibility. However, by their actions, the cops show themselves to be the bad guys; the thugs with badges.
On top of all this punishment, the bad(ge) guys added the made-up charge of "inciting a riot". Funny, I never heard any news reports of this "riot" occurring. Maybe they imagined it.
The vermin in blue are your servants. Not your masters. Out-of-control servants should be fired. And, since the position leads invariably to this sort of abuse, replaced with nothing. How will they learn their place if we keep acting as though they have authority that they did not earn? If they want our respect, they had better start earning it. Now! This isn't the way for them to do that.
Organs of tyranny- schools and cops
Organs of tyranny- schools and cops
Why am I so hard on "public schools" and "law enforcement"? It isn't that the Albuquerque Public Schools or the Albuquerque Police Department are worse than their counterparts elsewhere. They are just fulfilling their only true purpose: upholding and continuing the coercive, externally imposed, and completely unhealthy-to-civilization, State. By doing what comes naturally, these coercive organizations give me endless fodder for pointing out that The State doesn't work. Those who believe it can are hopelessly Utopian. There are better ways of doing everything- ways that respect the liberty of the individual.
It has been said that "public schools" are the reproductive organs of The State. Without government-controlled "education" it would be difficult to keep each new generation of people fooled into believing that theft, murder, and kidnapping are OK as long as they are called "taxation", "war", and "arrest". Fooled into believing that there is such a thing as "the common good", and that to achieve it you must give up your individual sovereignty and let others assume control of your life and your body. That property rights only exist for governments. And that without a government ruling our lives we would be doing the things that government does anyway- raping, killing, stealing- without consequence. Only by getting inside a mind while it is still young and malleable can such self-contradictory beliefs be seeded with much success.
If the "pubic schools" are the reproductive organs of The State, then "law enforcement" is the reptilian brain. It is the primitive aggressive reactionary part. The non-thinking bestial mind. And it is always over-stimulated with an excess of testosterone and adrenaline. It sees the normal people as "the enemy". Guilt to be determined later. Without this "organ" the cruel and twisted desires of the Rulers would go nowhere. It takes a cop to impose a tyranny.
There are better ways of living. Education is natural and doesn't need to be imposed and enforced. Civility will happen naturally absent an army of "Only Ones" creating chaos from "laws". All it takes is an understanding of rights and a natural application of consequences for violating those rights. Problem? Solved!
Why am I so hard on "public schools" and "law enforcement"? It isn't that the Albuquerque Public Schools or the Albuquerque Police Department are worse than their counterparts elsewhere. They are just fulfilling their only true purpose: upholding and continuing the coercive, externally imposed, and completely unhealthy-to-civilization, State. By doing what comes naturally, these coercive organizations give me endless fodder for pointing out that The State doesn't work. Those who believe it can are hopelessly Utopian. There are better ways of doing everything- ways that respect the liberty of the individual.
It has been said that "public schools" are the reproductive organs of The State. Without government-controlled "education" it would be difficult to keep each new generation of people fooled into believing that theft, murder, and kidnapping are OK as long as they are called "taxation", "war", and "arrest". Fooled into believing that there is such a thing as "the common good", and that to achieve it you must give up your individual sovereignty and let others assume control of your life and your body. That property rights only exist for governments. And that without a government ruling our lives we would be doing the things that government does anyway- raping, killing, stealing- without consequence. Only by getting inside a mind while it is still young and malleable can such self-contradictory beliefs be seeded with much success.
If the "pubic schools" are the reproductive organs of The State, then "law enforcement" is the reptilian brain. It is the primitive aggressive reactionary part. The non-thinking bestial mind. And it is always over-stimulated with an excess of testosterone and adrenaline. It sees the normal people as "the enemy". Guilt to be determined later. Without this "organ" the cruel and twisted desires of the Rulers would go nowhere. It takes a cop to impose a tyranny.
There are better ways of living. Education is natural and doesn't need to be imposed and enforced. Civility will happen naturally absent an army of "Only Ones" creating chaos from "laws". All it takes is an understanding of rights and a natural application of consequences for violating those rights. Problem? Solved!
Sunday, September 19, 2010
ABQ Protestors: 'Keep sending us the stolen loot!'
ABQ Protestors: 'Keep sending us the stolen loot!'
Want a perfect demonstration of what happens when people discover they can live off the fruits of political theft (without the risk of personally facing their victims)? They act as though getting your money is a "right". A real right can never impose an obligation on anyone else. You have the absolute human right to own and to carry any kind of gun you want, but no one is obligated to give you that gun. You must build it yourself or trade for/buy it. The same goes for "health care" and a retirement allowance.
A group of protestors in Albuquerque were demanding, for the benefit of some pandering politicians who were in town, that "Federal Programs" not be cut. That's fine if they are offering their own money to keep those programs running rather than demanding that other people be stolen from. But that's not what they are advocating. And the candidates from Socialist Party B ("B" only because they are the ones supposedly out of power right now, not because they are any less committed to socialism than those in Socialist Part A) fall right into step by promising to protect the theft racket. How could the protestors have had any doubt?
It is stupid to bother wasting your time demanding that the politicians not cut federal welfare programs such as "Social Security", Medicare, or Medicaid. Those programs are what bribes "the majority" into leaving behind self-responsibility and embracing collectivism, to the continuing benefit of The State. As long as people are allowed to vote for thieves who will continue to promise to steal from their neighbors, those programs will never be in real jeopardy. Some people must just feel a need to be seen holding signs and shouting near politicians.
Want a perfect demonstration of what happens when people discover they can live off the fruits of political theft (without the risk of personally facing their victims)? They act as though getting your money is a "right". A real right can never impose an obligation on anyone else. You have the absolute human right to own and to carry any kind of gun you want, but no one is obligated to give you that gun. You must build it yourself or trade for/buy it. The same goes for "health care" and a retirement allowance.
A group of protestors in Albuquerque were demanding, for the benefit of some pandering politicians who were in town, that "Federal Programs" not be cut. That's fine if they are offering their own money to keep those programs running rather than demanding that other people be stolen from. But that's not what they are advocating. And the candidates from Socialist Party B ("B" only because they are the ones supposedly out of power right now, not because they are any less committed to socialism than those in Socialist Part A) fall right into step by promising to protect the theft racket. How could the protestors have had any doubt?
It is stupid to bother wasting your time demanding that the politicians not cut federal welfare programs such as "Social Security", Medicare, or Medicaid. Those programs are what bribes "the majority" into leaving behind self-responsibility and embracing collectivism, to the continuing benefit of The State. As long as people are allowed to vote for thieves who will continue to promise to steal from their neighbors, those programs will never be in real jeopardy. Some people must just feel a need to be seen holding signs and shouting near politicians.
Sheriff's Association throws tantrum over judge's decision
Sheriff's Association throws tantrum over judge's decision
The Bernalillo County Deputy Sheriff’s Association is squealing like a sty full of stuck pigs over the judge's decision to let the man accused of shooting his deputized kidnapper out of jail for a day to attend his brother's funeral. I'm not surprised. However, if we "lesser citizens" were acting the same way we'd be said to be "whining".
Not a single one of the "crimes" mentioned in the BCDSA's release (out of "nine felonies" the Grand Jury saw fit to indict him on) should be "crimes". Not a single one. Of all the man's previous offenses (resisting arrest, eluding police, domestic violence, and battery on a police officer), only one- domestic violence- is a real offense. And, in today's world it is also one of the least credible. Yes, it does happen a lot, but even more it is made up to punish a significant other- often at the encouragement of the "authorities". I have no idea if the prisoner actually did it or not, but even if he did, let his victim seek restitution and end it there. There is no need to get The State involved. All the rest of his "offenses" are the exercise of the basic right to not be kidnapped and attacked by thugs of whatever type, no matter what silly hat they wear.
In the most pathetic attempt at emotional manipulation, the prisoner's tattoo is used as justification for keeping him a prisoner. Yet LEOs often have tattoos that are just as bad and denigrating to the people they are supposed to be serving. You know, "the public"- their masters. I have seen them myself (admittedly only when the cops were off-duty). I'd say the man's tattoo is a reasonable reaction to what "The Law" has put him through.
I'll be surprised if the judge stands firm in his decision instead of caving to the vociferous whining of Albuquerque's "Only Ones".
Update: Surprise, surprise.
The Bernalillo County Deputy Sheriff’s Association is squealing like a sty full of stuck pigs over the judge's decision to let the man accused of shooting his deputized kidnapper out of jail for a day to attend his brother's funeral. I'm not surprised. However, if we "lesser citizens" were acting the same way we'd be said to be "whining".
Not a single one of the "crimes" mentioned in the BCDSA's release (out of "nine felonies" the Grand Jury saw fit to indict him on) should be "crimes". Not a single one. Of all the man's previous offenses (resisting arrest, eluding police, domestic violence, and battery on a police officer), only one- domestic violence- is a real offense. And, in today's world it is also one of the least credible. Yes, it does happen a lot, but even more it is made up to punish a significant other- often at the encouragement of the "authorities". I have no idea if the prisoner actually did it or not, but even if he did, let his victim seek restitution and end it there. There is no need to get The State involved. All the rest of his "offenses" are the exercise of the basic right to not be kidnapped and attacked by thugs of whatever type, no matter what silly hat they wear.
In the most pathetic attempt at emotional manipulation, the prisoner's tattoo is used as justification for keeping him a prisoner. Yet LEOs often have tattoos that are just as bad and denigrating to the people they are supposed to be serving. You know, "the public"- their masters. I have seen them myself (admittedly only when the cops were off-duty). I'd say the man's tattoo is a reasonable reaction to what "The Law" has put him through.
I'll be surprised if the judge stands firm in his decision instead of caving to the vociferous whining of Albuquerque's "Only Ones".
Update: Surprise, surprise.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
'Public schools' teach that theft, collectivism are A-OK
'Public schools' teach that theft, collectivism are A-OK
Students who were not breaking the rules have had their personal property stolen by the principal of Albuquerque's Van Buren Middle School. Another student was breaking the "no skateboarding" rule, so the principal, in a textbook example of collectivist non-thinking, "confiscated" everyone's skateboards. Because you can control what I do, right? This is a lesson socialists in government love to teach. It forms the basis for "gun control" and other forms of bigotry as well.
The dad of one of the victims foolishly went to report the theft to the police. He wasted his time unless he learned a lesson. The police, who are just as corrupt and dependent on collectivism and theft as the "public schools", refuse to act on this particular theft since the thief, the principal (unnamed in the news story's glaring "omission", but Ms. Cardinal Rieger, according to an internet search), "intends" to return the stolen property in a week. So, I suppose bank holdups are OK with The Law as long as the thieves return the money when they say they will- perhaps after their investments have paid off.
Sending your kids off to be subject to the whims of such people as this principal without principles is abuse. Government is destroying education and replacing it with "schooling" in statism. Separate school and state!
Students who were not breaking the rules have had their personal property stolen by the principal of Albuquerque's Van Buren Middle School. Another student was breaking the "no skateboarding" rule, so the principal, in a textbook example of collectivist non-thinking, "confiscated" everyone's skateboards. Because you can control what I do, right? This is a lesson socialists in government love to teach. It forms the basis for "gun control" and other forms of bigotry as well.
The dad of one of the victims foolishly went to report the theft to the police. He wasted his time unless he learned a lesson. The police, who are just as corrupt and dependent on collectivism and theft as the "public schools", refuse to act on this particular theft since the thief, the principal (unnamed in the news story's glaring "omission", but Ms. Cardinal Rieger, according to an internet search), "intends" to return the stolen property in a week. So, I suppose bank holdups are OK with The Law as long as the thieves return the money when they say they will- perhaps after their investments have paid off.
Sending your kids off to be subject to the whims of such people as this principal without principles is abuse. Government is destroying education and replacing it with "schooling" in statism. Separate school and state!
Examiner.com's "profanity filter"
Every comment I have tried to post on Examiner articles today has triggered the Examier "profanity filter".
If you are trying to comment on my articles and find yourself being "profane" without knowing how, just post your comments on the appropriate article link here on my blog. The article will catch up to it in about a week.
Examiner.com seems to be run or programmed by idiots.
PS: When you visit my Examiner column, please "subscribe" using the subscribe button. It will help maximize my pay, supposedly.
If you are trying to comment on my articles and find yourself being "profane" without knowing how, just post your comments on the appropriate article link here on my blog. The article will catch up to it in about a week.
Examiner.com seems to be run or programmed by idiots.
PS: When you visit my Examiner column, please "subscribe" using the subscribe button. It will help maximize my pay, supposedly.
'Concerned citizen' destroys woman's life for a pat on the head
'Concerned citizen' destroys woman's life for a pat on the head
"Concerned citizens" are enablers of authoritarianism. Nothing good ever comes from their meddling. They are spies for The State. They are like a virus that harms those they encounter; damaging civilization by their very presence. None of the worst tyrannies in history would have never gotten off the drawing board without complicit people like these useful idiots.
As proof, just look at the news of the teacher in Albuquerque who was arrested after a "concerned citizen" told police the teacher was growing marijuana. So what? It's a plant. I see no claim she was holding down students and forcing it down their throats. Yet The State wants her to force collectivism into young minds, and apparently this "concerned citizen" was OK with that. Which is worse in the long run? Certainly not the marijuana, that is for sure.
Trying to justify herself, where no justification is needed, the teacher claimed the marijuana was needed for health reasons. The "authorities" fired back that "they can't find any record that [she] has a medical marijuana license." Having a license or not is no indicator of whether a person needs to have marijuana for medical reasons. This is smoke and mirrors on the part of The State. An attempt to change the debate into something it was not.
Now the Albuquerque Public Schools are overreacting in several ways, acting like this is some sort of disaster caused by the teacher rather than by the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. They are providing councilors (using your money) in case any traumatized students "want to talk". Yeah, let the councilors explain to upset kids why a woman who is not even suspected of harming anyone has been kidnapped by a gang of thugs, and is now being persecuted by the kidnappers and will likely have her life destroyed. Not by the consequences of the drugs, but by the prohibition industry. That's an explanation we'd all like to hear.
Want to solve this "problem" and make sure nothing like this ever happens again? End the Drug War and get government OUT of the business of "schooling".
* * Just in case you missed the link above, visit http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm to see rational alternatives to the government indoctrination centers called "public schools". And buy my book "Problem? Solved!" for more liberty-respecting solutions.
"Concerned citizens" are enablers of authoritarianism. Nothing good ever comes from their meddling. They are spies for The State. They are like a virus that harms those they encounter; damaging civilization by their very presence. None of the worst tyrannies in history would have never gotten off the drawing board without complicit people like these useful idiots.
As proof, just look at the news of the teacher in Albuquerque who was arrested after a "concerned citizen" told police the teacher was growing marijuana. So what? It's a plant. I see no claim she was holding down students and forcing it down their throats. Yet The State wants her to force collectivism into young minds, and apparently this "concerned citizen" was OK with that. Which is worse in the long run? Certainly not the marijuana, that is for sure.
Trying to justify herself, where no justification is needed, the teacher claimed the marijuana was needed for health reasons. The "authorities" fired back that "they can't find any record that [she] has a medical marijuana license." Having a license or not is no indicator of whether a person needs to have marijuana for medical reasons. This is smoke and mirrors on the part of The State. An attempt to change the debate into something it was not.
Now the Albuquerque Public Schools are overreacting in several ways, acting like this is some sort of disaster caused by the teacher rather than by the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. They are providing councilors (using your money) in case any traumatized students "want to talk". Yeah, let the councilors explain to upset kids why a woman who is not even suspected of harming anyone has been kidnapped by a gang of thugs, and is now being persecuted by the kidnappers and will likely have her life destroyed. Not by the consequences of the drugs, but by the prohibition industry. That's an explanation we'd all like to hear.
Want to solve this "problem" and make sure nothing like this ever happens again? End the Drug War and get government OUT of the business of "schooling".
* * Just in case you missed the link above, visit http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm to see rational alternatives to the government indoctrination centers called "public schools". And buy my book "Problem? Solved!" for more liberty-respecting solutions.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Is the 'criminal' more honorable than the 'authorities'?
Is the 'criminal' more honorable than the 'authorities'?
The Albuquerque man arrested last month for shooting a sheriff's deputy is being given a day out of jail to attend his brother's funeral. Without a lot more facts I can't say whether this temporary release is a good thing or a bad thing.
I admit, there is a lot I don't know about the history behind this case, and the "authorities" will never tell the truth openly. This man was "arrested" for shooting the deputy, but the deputy he shot was involved in a SWAT raid on him at the time- for a victimless "crime" he was suspected of committing. This was obviously a self defense shooting. The deputy's gang was attempting to use force in order to effect a kidnapping of a person who was not actually initiating force, theft, or fraud at the time of the shooting. There is nothing magical about a badge that makes a person immune from consequences of coercion, no matter what The State may claim.
The State claims the man is a "suspected drug dealer", but that is not wrong in and of itself. It is an exercise in the free market. Is the man really a "danger to our community" or only to people who are attacking him? Of course those whose "jobs" involve coercion and threats to the rights and liberties of the normal individuals are whining mightily about the release. As always "officer safety" comes first in their "minds", long before any such trivial (to them) thing as the absolute right to be left alone to live your life as you see fit until you initiate force, fraud, or theft.
Should he voluntarily return to captivity after the funeral? That is a call only he can make, since any agreement he made with his kidnappers is null and void on grounds that it isn't truly consensual.
The Albuquerque man arrested last month for shooting a sheriff's deputy is being given a day out of jail to attend his brother's funeral. Without a lot more facts I can't say whether this temporary release is a good thing or a bad thing.
I admit, there is a lot I don't know about the history behind this case, and the "authorities" will never tell the truth openly. This man was "arrested" for shooting the deputy, but the deputy he shot was involved in a SWAT raid on him at the time- for a victimless "crime" he was suspected of committing. This was obviously a self defense shooting. The deputy's gang was attempting to use force in order to effect a kidnapping of a person who was not actually initiating force, theft, or fraud at the time of the shooting. There is nothing magical about a badge that makes a person immune from consequences of coercion, no matter what The State may claim.
The State claims the man is a "suspected drug dealer", but that is not wrong in and of itself. It is an exercise in the free market. Is the man really a "danger to our community" or only to people who are attacking him? Of course those whose "jobs" involve coercion and threats to the rights and liberties of the normal individuals are whining mightily about the release. As always "officer safety" comes first in their "minds", long before any such trivial (to them) thing as the absolute right to be left alone to live your life as you see fit until you initiate force, fraud, or theft.
Should he voluntarily return to captivity after the funeral? That is a call only he can make, since any agreement he made with his kidnappers is null and void on grounds that it isn't truly consensual.
What happens when you don't pay your 'protection money'?
What happens when you don't pay your 'protection money'?
An Albuquerque-area couple has allowed themselves to be abused and stolen from by a gang of thieves as retribution for the uppity act of attempting to keep their own property rather than handing it over to the thieves who demanded it. They "pleaded guilty to tax evasion". I'm sure when staring down the gun barrels of The State it seemed like the only option open to them, but it is a real shame to give in to bad guys, no matter what silly hat they wear.
There is nothing wrong with "tax evasion" unless it is also wrong to hide money in your shoe so the mugger in the alley won't take it. They may have done so, but they are by no means "guilty" since there is no guilt associated with a right and proper course of action when faced with coercion.
The "judge" also made sure to threaten the couple to continue to pay their protection money "or else". How can anyone think the tax racket is anything other than mob-style theft?
An Albuquerque-area couple has allowed themselves to be abused and stolen from by a gang of thieves as retribution for the uppity act of attempting to keep their own property rather than handing it over to the thieves who demanded it. They "pleaded guilty to tax evasion". I'm sure when staring down the gun barrels of The State it seemed like the only option open to them, but it is a real shame to give in to bad guys, no matter what silly hat they wear.
There is nothing wrong with "tax evasion" unless it is also wrong to hide money in your shoe so the mugger in the alley won't take it. They may have done so, but they are by no means "guilty" since there is no guilt associated with a right and proper course of action when faced with coercion.
The "judge" also made sure to threaten the couple to continue to pay their protection money "or else". How can anyone think the tax racket is anything other than mob-style theft?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Don't talk to cops, not even now
Don't talk to cops, not even now
What happens if your neighbors are found dead in their home, and LEOs want to interview everyone in the neighborhood? It's a scenario playing out in Albuquerque now.
If you refuse to speak to cops you will look guilty and suspicious. If you decide this is a good time to visit out-of-town relatives- same thing.
It is a really bad idea to speak to cops under any circumstances, but refusing to speak will throw up a red flag, and I'd bet refusing to speak without your lawyer present will put you on a list for future scrutiny and harassment. However, it is a possibility that is worth the risk.
Your immediate cooperation can't bring the dead back to life. It is doubtful it would even prevent a future attack, because preventing attacks is not the goal of the enforcers or their handlers. The proof is all around you. The best preventative solution, individual self defense, is "discouraged" by The Law, and practitioners are singled out for punishment more severe than many aggressors face.
Prevention is probably the best solution, but not everything can be prevented. Watch out for your neighbors (while minding your own business) and be aware of what is going on around you. And Don't Talk to Cops.
**In case you missed the link above, here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
What happens if your neighbors are found dead in their home, and LEOs want to interview everyone in the neighborhood? It's a scenario playing out in Albuquerque now.
If you refuse to speak to cops you will look guilty and suspicious. If you decide this is a good time to visit out-of-town relatives- same thing.
It is a really bad idea to speak to cops under any circumstances, but refusing to speak will throw up a red flag, and I'd bet refusing to speak without your lawyer present will put you on a list for future scrutiny and harassment. However, it is a possibility that is worth the risk.
Your immediate cooperation can't bring the dead back to life. It is doubtful it would even prevent a future attack, because preventing attacks is not the goal of the enforcers or their handlers. The proof is all around you. The best preventative solution, individual self defense, is "discouraged" by The Law, and practitioners are singled out for punishment more severe than many aggressors face.
Prevention is probably the best solution, but not everything can be prevented. Watch out for your neighbors (while minding your own business) and be aware of what is going on around you. And Don't Talk to Cops.
**In case you missed the link above, here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Child porn conviction exposes flaws in the system
Child porn conviction exposes flaws in the system
An Albuquerque man has been sentenced to 15 years in jail, and a lifetime of continual punishment, for having child porn. There is no indication he was the predator who was responsible for actually producing the images (if they actually depict real children rather than cartoon characters The Law interprets as "children"). Just that he had them and attempted to forward them.
Child pornography offends me deeply and is absolutely disgusting. However, this man was previously convicted on charges of an "attempt to commit criminal sexual penetration and criminal sexual contact of a minor". Yet, there is no indication that he made such an attempt during his possession of the child porn. (If he did then the investigators who were watching him for the past year+ are guilty of allowing him to do harm on their watch.) The reality is that study after study, in countries around the globe, show that such images provide an outlet and make a person less likely to actually prey on innocent people (despite punishment industry claims to the contrary).
The fact that he wasn't already registered as a sex offender after his previous convictions shows, once again, that the system doesn't work.
Perhaps he really is a bad guy; I certainly wouldn't trust my children around him. Yet mere possession of anything can never be a real crime. The person who made the photos and videos of children is the real aggressor here. Not some guy way on down the line. Whether there are "consumers" for such will never impact whether the images are made or not, since I highly doubt that's even a major part of the motivation for making them.
It is your job as a parent to know where your kids are, and who is with them. "Laws" will never replace you and you can never shirk your responsibility and expect others to do it for you. This makes me think of the parents who let their kids spend the night with a certain plastic surgery-addicted, and openly odd, celebrity, and were then "shocked" that questionable things may have happened during the sleepovers.
For a deeper look at, and libertarian solutions to, this and many other issues, get my book "Problem? Solved!".
(Examiner has given their writers an opportunity to make more money for the next few weeks by writing more articles, so I'm going to be grasping for topics. Excuse me if quality suffers as I strive for quantity.)
Letting the fox design the henhouse
Letting the fox design the henhouse
To allow politicians, bureaucrats, and enforcement thugs (whether in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, or Washington DC) to control the ownership and features of guns makes as much sense as allowing mosquitoes to control the deployment and voltage of bug zappers. Or to allow flies to have control over possession, use, and design of fly swatters. Or to allow rats to control the formulation and use of rat poison. They will always attempt to make the potentially helpful things as useless against attackers, and as dangerous to the user, as possible.
Safety features like suppressors ("silencers") and barrel shrouds are misunderstood, feared, and hated, and therefore either regulated or misrepresented to an ignorant public. Of course those who hate guns (and by extension, gun owners) would prefer that we go deaf from shooting and burn ourselves on hot barrels. Accept it or not, they'd also prefer you shot yourself, despite their condescending lies to the contrary. Notice how gleefully they dance in the blood (while trying to look pensive and sincere) and position for a microphone as soon as any gun-related tragedy, whether an accident or an attack, occurs.
Guns are designed as tools to protect you from those who would do you harm. If you are a good person then those who would do you harm are the bad guys. It doesn't matter if they claim to have "authority" or are just freelance thugs. Of course they want to be protected from your righteous self-defense. That is why they advocate "laws" regulating or licensing your guns. They want to be able to harm you without facing the justifiable consequences of their actions. There are no exceptions to this fact.
To allow politicians, bureaucrats, and enforcement thugs (whether in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, or Washington DC) to control the ownership and features of guns makes as much sense as allowing mosquitoes to control the deployment and voltage of bug zappers. Or to allow flies to have control over possession, use, and design of fly swatters. Or to allow rats to control the formulation and use of rat poison. They will always attempt to make the potentially helpful things as useless against attackers, and as dangerous to the user, as possible.
Safety features like suppressors ("silencers") and barrel shrouds are misunderstood, feared, and hated, and therefore either regulated or misrepresented to an ignorant public. Of course those who hate guns (and by extension, gun owners) would prefer that we go deaf from shooting and burn ourselves on hot barrels. Accept it or not, they'd also prefer you shot yourself, despite their condescending lies to the contrary. Notice how gleefully they dance in the blood (while trying to look pensive and sincere) and position for a microphone as soon as any gun-related tragedy, whether an accident or an attack, occurs.
Guns are designed as tools to protect you from those who would do you harm. If you are a good person then those who would do you harm are the bad guys. It doesn't matter if they claim to have "authority" or are just freelance thugs. Of course they want to be protected from your righteous self-defense. That is why they advocate "laws" regulating or licensing your guns. They want to be able to harm you without facing the justifiable consequences of their actions. There are no exceptions to this fact.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Helping the suicidal- cop style
Helping the suicidal- cop style
A 19 year-old "disturbed" man, who had apparently cut his wrists in a suicide attempt, was shot by a LEO in Albuquerque Tuesday morning. (Way to help an injured person there, Officer Kelly.)
So, maybe it really was a self-defense shooting. The man is said to have had a knife, after all, and we all know the foolishness of bringing a knife to a gun fight (or into a situation that could become a gun fight). In today's police state, any encounter with a cop is a potentially deadly encounter and can get out of control quickly. Cops are wound tight, possess an "us vs. them" mindset from the time they decide they want a badge, and anyone they approach is immediately and with good cause stricken with "fight or flight", either of which is a green light for a cop to shoot you without a second thought.
I'm guessing that bus stations have security cameras that could show whether the shot man actually "charged" the cops, as he is "said to have" done. Those tapes should be made public immediately. Then let us each judge the appropriateness of the shooting for ourselves rather than relying on empty assurances from the APD's spokescritter..
A 19 year-old "disturbed" man, who had apparently cut his wrists in a suicide attempt, was shot by a LEO in Albuquerque Tuesday morning. (Way to help an injured person there, Officer Kelly.)
So, maybe it really was a self-defense shooting. The man is said to have had a knife, after all, and we all know the foolishness of bringing a knife to a gun fight (or into a situation that could become a gun fight). In today's police state, any encounter with a cop is a potentially deadly encounter and can get out of control quickly. Cops are wound tight, possess an "us vs. them" mindset from the time they decide they want a badge, and anyone they approach is immediately and with good cause stricken with "fight or flight", either of which is a green light for a cop to shoot you without a second thought.
I'm guessing that bus stations have security cameras that could show whether the shot man actually "charged" the cops, as he is "said to have" done. Those tapes should be made public immediately. Then let us each judge the appropriateness of the shooting for ourselves rather than relying on empty assurances from the APD's spokescritter..
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
A problem with authority
A problem with authority
'Authority' has had its meaning perverted. I have had people tell me that I have "a problem with authority". Nothing could be farther from the truth. I only have a problem with, a disgust for, counterfeit "authority". An empty "authority" that must rely on coercion to be maintained. When I run into real authority I defer to it. When I encounter false authority, I may not be spitting on the outside, but inside... I am spitting in its face.
True authority is the same as expertise. For years I tried to make fire with the bow drill. I followed directions in books. I spent hours, weeks, and months practicing. I made a lot of smoke and dust and blisters and bruises, but never one single fire. I could start fire easily with flint and steel, so it wasn't that I was helpless without matches and gasoline (like my dad is).
Then one day at a mountainman rendezvous, I heard that a man was giving a demonstration of starting a fire with the bow drill. I went and watched and listened as this man, this authority, started a couple of fires and helped a couple volunteers with their technique as well. When I left his presence I knew how it was done and I knew I could do it. I didn't even have to make the attempt to know. But, I soon did attempt the task anyway. I had a fire going in just a few minutes- from scratch to finish; sticks and cord to crackling flames. I was satisfied at my success, but not surprised.
This man was an authority and he had authority. He didn't need to force anyone to behave as though he were an authority. There was no coercion and no implied threat. You knew he had authority by his actions and his expertise and his results. If he told you that you were doing it wrong, you would be wise to listen, yet he would have let you try your own way if you refused to follow his suggestions. Your success or failure was no threat to his authority. I have now started hundreds (or thousands) of fires in this way, and taught the skill to others, all thanks to one true authority.
Cops, politicians, bureaucrats, and other so-called "authorities" can't compete in the real world, without the governments they cultivate and inhabit in Albuquerque and beyond, so they use threats and aggression to enforce their false "authority" on their victims. It shows them to be pathetic losers who try to claim that which is not theirs to claim.
Read more about Maturity and Authority.
.
'Authority' has had its meaning perverted. I have had people tell me that I have "a problem with authority". Nothing could be farther from the truth. I only have a problem with, a disgust for, counterfeit "authority". An empty "authority" that must rely on coercion to be maintained. When I run into real authority I defer to it. When I encounter false authority, I may not be spitting on the outside, but inside... I am spitting in its face.
True authority is the same as expertise. For years I tried to make fire with the bow drill. I followed directions in books. I spent hours, weeks, and months practicing. I made a lot of smoke and dust and blisters and bruises, but never one single fire. I could start fire easily with flint and steel, so it wasn't that I was helpless without matches and gasoline (like my dad is).
Then one day at a mountainman rendezvous, I heard that a man was giving a demonstration of starting a fire with the bow drill. I went and watched and listened as this man, this authority, started a couple of fires and helped a couple volunteers with their technique as well. When I left his presence I knew how it was done and I knew I could do it. I didn't even have to make the attempt to know. But, I soon did attempt the task anyway. I had a fire going in just a few minutes- from scratch to finish; sticks and cord to crackling flames. I was satisfied at my success, but not surprised.
This man was an authority and he had authority. He didn't need to force anyone to behave as though he were an authority. There was no coercion and no implied threat. You knew he had authority by his actions and his expertise and his results. If he told you that you were doing it wrong, you would be wise to listen, yet he would have let you try your own way if you refused to follow his suggestions. Your success or failure was no threat to his authority. I have now started hundreds (or thousands) of fires in this way, and taught the skill to others, all thanks to one true authority.
Cops, politicians, bureaucrats, and other so-called "authorities" can't compete in the real world, without the governments they cultivate and inhabit in Albuquerque and beyond, so they use threats and aggression to enforce their false "authority" on their victims. It shows them to be pathetic losers who try to claim that which is not theirs to claim.
Read more about Maturity and Authority.
.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Wise up, people
Wise up, people
LEOs responded to a "domestic violence" call in rural Tome (south of Albuquerque) and ended up getting inside the house (foolishly "invited"?) and then decided they "smelled marijuana growing", got a "search warrant" rubber-stamped by a complicit judge (or more likely pulled a pre-stamped one from the stack they had handy), and they then found a cannabis growing operation in the house.
If you choose to do anything the government forbids, you would be wise to not do anything wrong. In other words, if you are non-coercively growing plants that can get you kidnapped or killed by "the law", don't initiate force against your significant other. In many cases it would even be foolish to fight back if attacked. Many "significant others" have no scruples at all and will call LEOs on you as an act of revenge for some imagined slight, especially if they can attack you and then get you to fight back. I'm not saying this is necessarily what happened in this instance, just keep it in mind.
Don't attract attention, and try to avoid doing anything that might get dishonorable people to report you to The State for upsetting them. Yes, it is stupid that you must live this way, but it is the reality of the police state we live in. Accept it.
And never, ever, imagine that calling the cops is going to end in anything other than disaster for you personally, no matter what someone else has done to you.
LEOs responded to a "domestic violence" call in rural Tome (south of Albuquerque) and ended up getting inside the house (foolishly "invited"?) and then decided they "smelled marijuana growing", got a "search warrant" rubber-stamped by a complicit judge (or more likely pulled a pre-stamped one from the stack they had handy), and they then found a cannabis growing operation in the house.
If you choose to do anything the government forbids, you would be wise to not do anything wrong. In other words, if you are non-coercively growing plants that can get you kidnapped or killed by "the law", don't initiate force against your significant other. In many cases it would even be foolish to fight back if attacked. Many "significant others" have no scruples at all and will call LEOs on you as an act of revenge for some imagined slight, especially if they can attack you and then get you to fight back. I'm not saying this is necessarily what happened in this instance, just keep it in mind.
Don't attract attention, and try to avoid doing anything that might get dishonorable people to report you to The State for upsetting them. Yes, it is stupid that you must live this way, but it is the reality of the police state we live in. Accept it.
And never, ever, imagine that calling the cops is going to end in anything other than disaster for you personally, no matter what someone else has done to you.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Money matters
I want about $1500 for something totally trivial.
At least it is only a fraction of what I needed for my coins. It still seems completely unrealistically out of reach. Since I basically have no income I would need to sell some items to raise the cash. That's when reality punches me in the face. I own nothing that is worth anything other than the few things I won't part with.
In my fantasies I dream of selling enough of my books to pay for stuff I want or need, but that ain't happening. Or, if I could get several thousand page views on my Examiner columns every day for a while, that might work. (Unless Examiner decided to change the rules if my page views got too high.) That seems as unlikely as selling hundreds of my books in the next few weeks.
So, what else could I sell...
Let's see, I have my dog tag stamping machine that cost me around $900 new. And I rarely use it anymore since I am out of the pet business. I could sell that, plus all the blank tags and stuff, but I'm not sure how much that would get. Plus, since it weighs between 40 and 50 pounds (not counting accessories), shipping would be a pain.
I could probably afford to part with some of my beloved hats, but that would kinda hurt and I doubt it would raise much money. Not everyone loves hats like I do.
I already auctioned off most of my original artwork a few years ago, and I haven't done any more recently.
I have odds and ends like an old mountain bike, lots of kerosene lanterns, and "junque". I doubt if it would add up to anything even if I sold it all.
Maybe I could offer services instead.
I doubt prostitution would be very profitable for me. A shame, that. Plus, girls would never pay for what they can all get for free anytime the notion crosses their mind.
I could give lessons in primitive survival techniques if someone has land that would work for the purpose.
I excel at sharpening knives by hand (no power grinders or anything so fast and damaging). I never charged enough to make it worth the effort, though.
My sharpest skills aren't very marketable. I'm good at sitting around and thinking/daydreaming. Oh, and I can wander aimlessly around wild places for days.
My best bet is to talk myself out of wanting what I want.
At least it is only a fraction of what I needed for my coins. It still seems completely unrealistically out of reach. Since I basically have no income I would need to sell some items to raise the cash. That's when reality punches me in the face. I own nothing that is worth anything other than the few things I won't part with.
In my fantasies I dream of selling enough of my books to pay for stuff I want or need, but that ain't happening. Or, if I could get several thousand page views on my Examiner columns every day for a while, that might work. (Unless Examiner decided to change the rules if my page views got too high.) That seems as unlikely as selling hundreds of my books in the next few weeks.
So, what else could I sell...
Let's see, I have my dog tag stamping machine that cost me around $900 new. And I rarely use it anymore since I am out of the pet business. I could sell that, plus all the blank tags and stuff, but I'm not sure how much that would get. Plus, since it weighs between 40 and 50 pounds (not counting accessories), shipping would be a pain.
I could probably afford to part with some of my beloved hats, but that would kinda hurt and I doubt it would raise much money. Not everyone loves hats like I do.
I already auctioned off most of my original artwork a few years ago, and I haven't done any more recently.
I have odds and ends like an old mountain bike, lots of kerosene lanterns, and "junque". I doubt if it would add up to anything even if I sold it all.
Maybe I could offer services instead.
I doubt prostitution would be very profitable for me. A shame, that. Plus, girls would never pay for what they can all get for free anytime the notion crosses their mind.
I could give lessons in primitive survival techniques if someone has land that would work for the purpose.
I excel at sharpening knives by hand (no power grinders or anything so fast and damaging). I never charged enough to make it worth the effort, though.
My sharpest skills aren't very marketable. I'm good at sitting around and thinking/daydreaming. Oh, and I can wander aimlessly around wild places for days.
My best bet is to talk myself out of wanting what I want.
ABQ cop fired, may face charges in shooting
ABQ cop fired, may face charges in shooting
In a follow-up to a previous column, the Albuquerque LEO who shot a burglary suspect late last year, and who had the unfortunate experience of the bullet wounds apparently not agreeing with the official story, has been fired. My previous thoughts are on record here.
This is one of those extremely rare, and getting even more so, cases where a LEO is found to have not followed departmental guidelines and actually suffers some consequences after a shooting. I admit I thought this never happened anymore. I am pleasantly surprised to be wrong. It happens so rarely. (I'm joking! Give me a break!)
Now, the question remains, if you or I shot someone, would it take almost a year to decide whether it was a justifiable shooting, and if not, to press charges? Would we simply be fired from our job?
In a follow-up to a previous column, the Albuquerque LEO who shot a burglary suspect late last year, and who had the unfortunate experience of the bullet wounds apparently not agreeing with the official story, has been fired. My previous thoughts are on record here.
This is one of those extremely rare, and getting even more so, cases where a LEO is found to have not followed departmental guidelines and actually suffers some consequences after a shooting. I admit I thought this never happened anymore. I am pleasantly surprised to be wrong. It happens so rarely. (I'm joking! Give me a break!)
Now, the question remains, if you or I shot someone, would it take almost a year to decide whether it was a justifiable shooting, and if not, to press charges? Would we simply be fired from our job?
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Public Education Commission opposes education in New Mexico
Public Education Commission opposes education in New Mexico
Need yet another reason to get The State out of the business of schooling? The state's Public Education Commission has denied applications for six (out of eight) charter schools during their most recent meeting. The commission, along with the Orwellian "Education Department", has struck a blow against education and for the status quo.
Charter schools are not the best answer, obviously (since they still accept stolen money and are subject to government oversight), but they are one facet of the solution to the disaster of "public education". One that doesn't go near far enough, but can be a good first step for those still somewhat addicted to the government indoctrination centers called "schools". A way to begin to see that there are better options that can break the monopoly in some small way.
Any charter school that admitted it would emphasize independence, self-government, and critical thinking- especially where the claims of the parasitic governing class are concerned- wouldn't stand a chance of being accepted. Not that those likely to establish such a school would go seeking official permission or handouts. I'd also be willing to bet that those approved are promising to produce the kind of citizens most useful to, and accepting of, the gang of thugs known as "government". Of the two charter schools approved in the meeting, one is to be in Albuquerque: The New Mexico International School. Doesn't that sound like just what the collectivists envision for us all?
Here's an alternative suggestion and an offer: come to me, offer a little money or trade for my time and materials, and we can have our own School of Individual Liberty right in my yard.
Need yet another reason to get The State out of the business of schooling? The state's Public Education Commission has denied applications for six (out of eight) charter schools during their most recent meeting. The commission, along with the Orwellian "Education Department", has struck a blow against education and for the status quo.
Charter schools are not the best answer, obviously (since they still accept stolen money and are subject to government oversight), but they are one facet of the solution to the disaster of "public education". One that doesn't go near far enough, but can be a good first step for those still somewhat addicted to the government indoctrination centers called "schools". A way to begin to see that there are better options that can break the monopoly in some small way.
Any charter school that admitted it would emphasize independence, self-government, and critical thinking- especially where the claims of the parasitic governing class are concerned- wouldn't stand a chance of being accepted. Not that those likely to establish such a school would go seeking official permission or handouts. I'd also be willing to bet that those approved are promising to produce the kind of citizens most useful to, and accepting of, the gang of thugs known as "government". Of the two charter schools approved in the meeting, one is to be in Albuquerque: The New Mexico International School. Doesn't that sound like just what the collectivists envision for us all?
Here's an alternative suggestion and an offer: come to me, offer a little money or trade for my time and materials, and we can have our own School of Individual Liberty right in my yard.
Gubernatorial candidate Martinez confused about what a 'law' is
Gubernatorial candidate Martinez confused about what a 'law' is
In Albuquerque news: Susana Martinez is showing her ignorance again. The Republican candidate for New Mexico tyrant... er, "governor", says she would repeal the medical marijuana law because "She feels that there are other treatments for patients in need of care that do not break the law." Hey, Genius, because of the current medical marijuana law, it is NOT "breaking the law" to use medical marijuana. That's the whole point of having that particular law. And, according to the Tenth Amendment, state laws trump federal laws every time they deal with something not specifically authorized to the feds by the Constitution (RIP). Like it or not.
This doesn't mean that the state "laws" prohibiting a mere plant to the rest of the people not covered by the medical marijuana law are legitimate, they are not. No one has the right or the authority to control what any other person ingests. Not ever, under any circumstances.
This is getting embarrassing for poor Susana.
As much as I dislike Diane Denish (and I assure you, that's a LOT), at least she isn't opening her mouth as frequently and showing what a fool she is to quite the extent Martinez is lately. I expect that to change soon.
* * * *
Which leads to another lesson in libertarian philosophy.
The people who don't believe rights really exist- that you only have the rights you are willing to fight and kill to assert, and that no one else has any obligation to respect those rights- may have a point. Perhaps rights are all in our minds and are simply a social construct.
Maybe you don't really have property rights that others should respect, and that you can defend if they are violated.
Maybe you don't really have the right to not be attacked, and if you are, to defend yourself from that aggression.
If this is truly the case, how would it change anything?
If you have no rights, then neither do those who claim the right or the authority to control you. Perhaps the true nature of rights really comes down to negatives. Things you do not ever have a right to do. Things such as using coercion against non-violent people. Things such as requiring permits from people just wanting to go about their lives. Things such as forbidding behavior between responsible individuals which harms no third party. Things such as telling any other person what they may ingest, and attacking them if they ignore your demands. This is all a roundabout way of saying there is no right, ever, to rule any other person.
Which leads back to the exact same destination from the opposite direction. This causes me to think, once again, that rights are real, and that we already know what they are, and what they are not.
In Albuquerque news: Susana Martinez is showing her ignorance again. The Republican candidate for New Mexico tyrant... er, "governor", says she would repeal the medical marijuana law because "She feels that there are other treatments for patients in need of care that do not break the law." Hey, Genius, because of the current medical marijuana law, it is NOT "breaking the law" to use medical marijuana. That's the whole point of having that particular law. And, according to the Tenth Amendment, state laws trump federal laws every time they deal with something not specifically authorized to the feds by the Constitution (RIP). Like it or not.
This doesn't mean that the state "laws" prohibiting a mere plant to the rest of the people not covered by the medical marijuana law are legitimate, they are not. No one has the right or the authority to control what any other person ingests. Not ever, under any circumstances.
This is getting embarrassing for poor Susana.
As much as I dislike Diane Denish (and I assure you, that's a LOT), at least she isn't opening her mouth as frequently and showing what a fool she is to quite the extent Martinez is lately. I expect that to change soon.
* * * *
Which leads to another lesson in libertarian philosophy.
The people who don't believe rights really exist- that you only have the rights you are willing to fight and kill to assert, and that no one else has any obligation to respect those rights- may have a point. Perhaps rights are all in our minds and are simply a social construct.
Maybe you don't really have property rights that others should respect, and that you can defend if they are violated.
Maybe you don't really have the right to not be attacked, and if you are, to defend yourself from that aggression.
If this is truly the case, how would it change anything?
If you have no rights, then neither do those who claim the right or the authority to control you. Perhaps the true nature of rights really comes down to negatives. Things you do not ever have a right to do. Things such as using coercion against non-violent people. Things such as requiring permits from people just wanting to go about their lives. Things such as forbidding behavior between responsible individuals which harms no third party. Things such as telling any other person what they may ingest, and attacking them if they ignore your demands. This is all a roundabout way of saying there is no right, ever, to rule any other person.
Which leads back to the exact same destination from the opposite direction. This causes me to think, once again, that rights are real, and that we already know what they are, and what they are not.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Martinez misses the point yet again
Martinez misses the point yet again
Goobernut-orial candidate Susana Martinez is trying hard to "out-socialist" Diane Denish, the other socialist candidate for the office. Are Albuquerque voters buying the rotten goods these politicians are selling? I suppose we shall see soon enough.
Rather than facing the fact that "public schools" are not geared toward education, but toward indoctrinating the young inmates into socialism and conformity, Martinez proposes making school an even more unpleasant experience for the captives by imposing more tests (that will still be "gamed" in some way as soon as they are implemented).
If education is really the goal, and knowledge (and how to acquire it) is the path toward that goal, then it is imperative to get government out of the schooling business completely. Education is MUCH too important to let government be involved in any way.
If voting is such a good idea, of which I am not convinced, why not get candidates who actually have different perspectives rather than the same old business-as-usual collectivism that is rampant? A false choice between Socialist/fascist candidate A and Socialist/fascist candidate B gets tiresome very quickly, if you allow yourself to see beyond the empty rhetoric. But, of course, government-controlled schooling is necessary to keep people blind to the truth and ignorant of the alternatives. It's a safe system for tyrants and those with ambition to become one.
Goobernut-orial candidate Susana Martinez is trying hard to "out-socialist" Diane Denish, the other socialist candidate for the office. Are Albuquerque voters buying the rotten goods these politicians are selling? I suppose we shall see soon enough.
Rather than facing the fact that "public schools" are not geared toward education, but toward indoctrinating the young inmates into socialism and conformity, Martinez proposes making school an even more unpleasant experience for the captives by imposing more tests (that will still be "gamed" in some way as soon as they are implemented).
If education is really the goal, and knowledge (and how to acquire it) is the path toward that goal, then it is imperative to get government out of the schooling business completely. Education is MUCH too important to let government be involved in any way.
If voting is such a good idea, of which I am not convinced, why not get candidates who actually have different perspectives rather than the same old business-as-usual collectivism that is rampant? A false choice between Socialist/fascist candidate A and Socialist/fascist candidate B gets tiresome very quickly, if you allow yourself to see beyond the empty rhetoric. But, of course, government-controlled schooling is necessary to keep people blind to the truth and ignorant of the alternatives. It's a safe system for tyrants and those with ambition to become one.
No drivers licenses for 'illegals' (or anyone else)!
No drivers licenses for 'illegals' (or anyone else)!
Idiot politicians are expressing their vapid opinions yet again. This time the debate is over whether "illegal immigrants" (sic) should be granted driver's licenses.
Goobernut-orial candidates Diane Denish and Susana Martinez are completely missing the point as they try really hard to say what they think voters want to hear. Albuquerque voters may be misguided, but are they really this stupid?
No, "illegals" (sic) should not be granted driver's licenses, and neither should anyone else. Driving, as a form of travel, is a basic human right, and is also protected from government interference by the 9th Amendment. It is not subject to approval from anyone. It is not subject to "licensing". For The State to pretend it has authority to decide who is allowed to travel by the predominate modern mode of transportation is disgusting and evil.
Idiot politicians are expressing their vapid opinions yet again. This time the debate is over whether "illegal immigrants" (sic) should be granted driver's licenses.
Goobernut-orial candidates Diane Denish and Susana Martinez are completely missing the point as they try really hard to say what they think voters want to hear. Albuquerque voters may be misguided, but are they really this stupid?
No, "illegals" (sic) should not be granted driver's licenses, and neither should anyone else. Driving, as a form of travel, is a basic human right, and is also protected from government interference by the 9th Amendment. It is not subject to approval from anyone. It is not subject to "licensing". For The State to pretend it has authority to decide who is allowed to travel by the predominate modern mode of transportation is disgusting and evil.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Rescuing the innocent without harming them more
Rescuing the innocent without harming them more
An Albuquerque woman has been "arrested" because cops came into her home for a "welfare check" and discovered her baby caked in dried feces and with a used baby wipe stuffed in his mouth. Another candidate for ABQ Parent of the Year. But what's the solution?
Let's discount right away the sick notion that it is OK to have a group of people, paid with stolen money, who are authorized to enter private property and check up on people's activities. Because it is not "OK" under any circumstances using any justification.
Without an "official system" to regulate and punish abusive or neglectful parents people would have no excuse to not pay attention. It couldn't be claimed that it is "someone else's job" anymore. If you know of a situation like this next door or across town, it becomes your responsibility to take action to help the innocent, or to find someone who will.
Imprisoning the mother doesn't help the child in any way. Neither do "fines". It doesn't protect the next victim from a similar event. It only empowers The State.
In a free society tragedies will still occur, just as they do in our current police state. Yet, individuals would still be able to intervene when they see an innocent person in trouble- without government. They just won't have badges unless they buy one- but then the badge will have no official standing and no "sovereign immunity"- if they cause harm or step beyond their boundaries while intervening; they are fully accountable. No kicking in doors, beating the residents or shooting them and their dogs, then being excused by The State as "following department guidelines". In the long run, liberty will result in less tragedy and less harm to the innocent than The State.
An Albuquerque woman has been "arrested" because cops came into her home for a "welfare check" and discovered her baby caked in dried feces and with a used baby wipe stuffed in his mouth. Another candidate for ABQ Parent of the Year. But what's the solution?
Let's discount right away the sick notion that it is OK to have a group of people, paid with stolen money, who are authorized to enter private property and check up on people's activities. Because it is not "OK" under any circumstances using any justification.
Without an "official system" to regulate and punish abusive or neglectful parents people would have no excuse to not pay attention. It couldn't be claimed that it is "someone else's job" anymore. If you know of a situation like this next door or across town, it becomes your responsibility to take action to help the innocent, or to find someone who will.
Imprisoning the mother doesn't help the child in any way. Neither do "fines". It doesn't protect the next victim from a similar event. It only empowers The State.
In a free society tragedies will still occur, just as they do in our current police state. Yet, individuals would still be able to intervene when they see an innocent person in trouble- without government. They just won't have badges unless they buy one- but then the badge will have no official standing and no "sovereign immunity"- if they cause harm or step beyond their boundaries while intervening; they are fully accountable. No kicking in doors, beating the residents or shooting them and their dogs, then being excused by The State as "following department guidelines". In the long run, liberty will result in less tragedy and less harm to the innocent than The State.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
ABQ company ordered to violate rights of its customers, or else
ABQ company ordered to violate rights of its customers, or else
A major apartment management company has been threatened by the federal government and told it must ignore state "law" and obey federal "law" instead. All "laws" are balderdash, of course, but in this case the state "law" is slightly less evil than the federal "law".
At issue are the state's medical marijuana "laws" versus the federal War on (some) Drugs/"jobs for idiots" program. The management company, because it accepts federal (sic) housing money, has been told it must follow federal edicts which falsely and bizzarely, contrary to scientific evidence, claim marijuana has no medicinal value. I understand the problems with accepting government handouts- a principled business owner would simply refuse to be bought- but with mass-housing (as with mass-transit), federally-doled money is a reality that isn't going away soon.
Absent the federal coercion the management company would be free to set its own policy. It would be within the owner's rights to kick people out for possessing marijuana, but it would still be wrong. Not everything you have a right to do is the right thing to do. This would be one of those cases.
A major apartment management company has been threatened by the federal government and told it must ignore state "law" and obey federal "law" instead. All "laws" are balderdash, of course, but in this case the state "law" is slightly less evil than the federal "law".
At issue are the state's medical marijuana "laws" versus the federal War on (some) Drugs/"jobs for idiots" program. The management company, because it accepts federal (sic) housing money, has been told it must follow federal edicts which falsely and bizzarely, contrary to scientific evidence, claim marijuana has no medicinal value. I understand the problems with accepting government handouts- a principled business owner would simply refuse to be bought- but with mass-housing (as with mass-transit), federally-doled money is a reality that isn't going away soon.
Absent the federal coercion the management company would be free to set its own policy. It would be within the owner's rights to kick people out for possessing marijuana, but it would still be wrong. Not everything you have a right to do is the right thing to do. This would be one of those cases.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
A graphic demonstration of authoritarianism
A graphic demonstration of authoritarianism
A man got so upset over a crying 2 year-old on an Albuquerque city bus that he sliced the kid's mom's friend with a knife. He demanded that the mom make the kid stop crying. As if one person is responsible for and can control the actions of another. Then, when the mom did take the only non-coercive path open to her (got off the bus before her stop), the aggressor couldn't just let her go, but got off as well in order to attack. Then, in a classic example of "mission creep", he used his knife to injure a third party who was not even the cause of his aggravation. This is the authoritarian mindset in action.
Every time someone advocates passing a new "law" to control non-coercive behavior they don't like they are following the same pattern as this aggressor. Every time their actions or "laws" injure a person who wasn't even directly engaging in the offending behavior they are guilty of the same thing as this attacker. Every time someone thinks people should be punished for offending them they are copying this thug's behavior to the letter.
This man should be held up as the new poster child of The State. Statists will never see themselves in him even as they continue to follow in his footsteps.
*
A man got so upset over a crying 2 year-old on an Albuquerque city bus that he sliced the kid's mom's friend with a knife. He demanded that the mom make the kid stop crying. As if one person is responsible for and can control the actions of another. Then, when the mom did take the only non-coercive path open to her (got off the bus before her stop), the aggressor couldn't just let her go, but got off as well in order to attack. Then, in a classic example of "mission creep", he used his knife to injure a third party who was not even the cause of his aggravation. This is the authoritarian mindset in action.
Every time someone advocates passing a new "law" to control non-coercive behavior they don't like they are following the same pattern as this aggressor. Every time their actions or "laws" injure a person who wasn't even directly engaging in the offending behavior they are guilty of the same thing as this attacker. Every time someone thinks people should be punished for offending them they are copying this thug's behavior to the letter.
This man should be held up as the new poster child of The State. Statists will never see themselves in him even as they continue to follow in his footsteps.
*
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Technology in the service of liberty
Technology in the service of liberty
Drunk driving arrests at illegal (no matter what the complicit courts may claim), unethical "checkpoints" in Albuquerque are down from previous years.
It may be due to people being more responsible; it may be due to people being scared of being kidnapped and altering their behavior; it may be due to bars watching their customers more carefully; or it may be due to freedom-enhancing, tyranny busting technology.
I'm betting it is a combination. The one to celebrate the most is the technology, only because "drunk driving" has been defined down to the point that "responsible behavior" is no longer possible as a significant factor.
No matter what the thugs of The State may decree, technology has always managed to foil tyranny in the end, even while the statists try to monopolize technology in the service of tyranny and oppression. In the arms race between liberty and government, liberty is smarter, more adaptable, and quicker. This is, obviously, good news for liberty.
*
Drunk driving arrests at illegal (no matter what the complicit courts may claim), unethical "checkpoints" in Albuquerque are down from previous years.
It may be due to people being more responsible; it may be due to people being scared of being kidnapped and altering their behavior; it may be due to bars watching their customers more carefully; or it may be due to freedom-enhancing, tyranny busting technology.
I'm betting it is a combination. The one to celebrate the most is the technology, only because "drunk driving" has been defined down to the point that "responsible behavior" is no longer possible as a significant factor.
No matter what the thugs of The State may decree, technology has always managed to foil tyranny in the end, even while the statists try to monopolize technology in the service of tyranny and oppression. In the arms race between liberty and government, liberty is smarter, more adaptable, and quicker. This is, obviously, good news for liberty.
*
When 'normal' is perverted
When 'normal' is perverted
Some situations are tangled and difficult to ever sort out. And, sometimes, the people involved understand it is not in their interest to help The State sort it out. This is one reason The State shouldn't impose itself on anyone (or in any situation) without the consent of some of those involved.
An Albuquerque woman "frying panned" and stabbed a man; initially claiming self defense. Her boyfriend was also injured, probably by the stabbed man. The stories have changed and now seem to center around jailhouse sex and embarrassment, and "honor" of some twisted type. The stabbed man is in the hospital with a tube down his throat and cops are waiting until he can speak to try to get him to incriminate himself in some way.
If these people were smart, which seems extremely unlikely given the circumstances, they would all refuse to speak to The Law. In a free society the matter would end there unless some of them sought restitution from the others involved, and then arbitration would be hired. Yet, this is not a free society and The State must get involved and find someone to punish. And most people think this is "normal"?
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Will you help fugitive slaves?
Will you help fugitive slaves?
I wasn't aware that the "Fugitive Slave Law" was still in force in Albuquerque. Yet, I see a report in the news that indicates it is. Those who harbor slaves who have managed to evade those who believe themselves to be the masters can be punished and the slaves will be returned to the plantation.
In this case, just as in the 19th century case, "the majority" sees nothing wrong with the slavery. They blame the slaves and those who help them avoid the slave- overseers. They claim this is for the slave's own good. They believe themselves to have a righteous cause- to be the "good guys". They are not.
This time around, the excuse is "education". The real goal is conformity and indoctrination into statism. Fortunately, kids are strong enough that the conditioning is not 100% effective. Let's help them avoid the fate the state would impose on them and those who help them. Education is much too important to let government have anything whatsoever to do with it.
I wasn't aware that the "Fugitive Slave Law" was still in force in Albuquerque. Yet, I see a report in the news that indicates it is. Those who harbor slaves who have managed to evade those who believe themselves to be the masters can be punished and the slaves will be returned to the plantation.
In this case, just as in the 19th century case, "the majority" sees nothing wrong with the slavery. They blame the slaves and those who help them avoid the slave- overseers. They claim this is for the slave's own good. They believe themselves to have a righteous cause- to be the "good guys". They are not.
This time around, the excuse is "education". The real goal is conformity and indoctrination into statism. Fortunately, kids are strong enough that the conditioning is not 100% effective. Let's help them avoid the fate the state would impose on them and those who help them. Education is much too important to let government have anything whatsoever to do with it.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Are you stimulated yet?
Are you stimulated yet?
The governor is using federal economic stimulus money, taken by threat of force from you and me or counterfeited by the "Federal Reserve", to ramp up enforcement of a state ban on cockfighting.
How is this use of the ill-gotten money stimulating the economy in any way? Sure, the enforcers will benefit and have more loot to spend. Why just hand it to them, though? Let them actively work to steal the money like their brethren in freelance coercion rackets do.
Rather, isn't this doing the opposite of "stimulating the economy"? I'm assuming money would be wagered in these fights, since that is the whole point. If people come from out of state and then spent their winnings in local Albuquerque stores, that would help the local economy.
Banning an activity and sending enforcers out to kidnap or kill those engaging in that activity seems unrelated, at least as an enhancement, to economics.
I'm not saying that cockfighting or dog fighting is a nice thing to do. I find both disgusting. So, I don't participate. Nor would I willingly associate with those who do.
I ask again: How is this use of the "stimulus" money stimulating the economy in any way? It seems a clear case of fraud to me. Taking money under one pretext and then using it for some other purpose. Maybe the governor should be "arrested".
* * * *
Filed under "Do as I demand; not as I do": This morning, on a street that runs alongside an elementary (government indoctrination center) school, I watched as a police car passed in traffic. I had a very good view of the driver. The cop inside was looking down and texting while driving instead of watching his surroundings. I wish I'd had a video camera.
The governor is using federal economic stimulus money, taken by threat of force from you and me or counterfeited by the "Federal Reserve", to ramp up enforcement of a state ban on cockfighting.
How is this use of the ill-gotten money stimulating the economy in any way? Sure, the enforcers will benefit and have more loot to spend. Why just hand it to them, though? Let them actively work to steal the money like their brethren in freelance coercion rackets do.
Rather, isn't this doing the opposite of "stimulating the economy"? I'm assuming money would be wagered in these fights, since that is the whole point. If people come from out of state and then spent their winnings in local Albuquerque stores, that would help the local economy.
Banning an activity and sending enforcers out to kidnap or kill those engaging in that activity seems unrelated, at least as an enhancement, to economics.
I'm not saying that cockfighting or dog fighting is a nice thing to do. I find both disgusting. So, I don't participate. Nor would I willingly associate with those who do.
I ask again: How is this use of the "stimulus" money stimulating the economy in any way? It seems a clear case of fraud to me. Taking money under one pretext and then using it for some other purpose. Maybe the governor should be "arrested".
* * * *
Filed under "Do as I demand; not as I do": This morning, on a street that runs alongside an elementary (government indoctrination center) school, I watched as a police car passed in traffic. I had a very good view of the driver. The cop inside was looking down and texting while driving instead of watching his surroundings. I wish I'd had a video camera.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Problem? Solved!
Get it before you can buy it? My newest book is called "Problem? Solved! Libertarian solutions for the real world".
It isn't officially available for purchase yet. That should happen sometime in the next week or so. BUT- It is available as a free download even before you can buy it.
Just go to My Books and download away!
Gangland kidnapping in ABQ results in one hostage and one wounded gang member
Gangland kidnapping in ABQ results in one hostage and one wounded gang member
An Albuquerque gang member has been shot in the leg while committing an early morning kidnapping with other members of his gang. The kidnapping succeeded. I have zero sympathy for someone who gets hurt while initiating force. It is simply a reasonable consequence of aggression.
The injured individual is a member of the gang known as SWAT, which is a branch of the infamous "Police"; the largest and most violent gang in America- responsible for more aggression and theft than all the other gangs combined.
SWAT "teams" were established under the lie that they were needed and would only be used to handle extreme situations, such as hostage rescues, where military weaponry (illegally prohibited to the rightful bearers), military tactics, and shockingly over-the-top violent responses might help get the hostage out alive. Or at least end the situation decisively. That they have been co-opted to handle mundane cop work, like serving warrants, exposes the uselessness of their existence and the "mission creep" inherent in all government agencies. The teams exist, they have a budget, so they will be used even if this escalates the situation.
Added to this fact is that, in this case, the warrant was being served for a victimless NONcrime, a consequence of the inexcusably stupid and evil "Drug War". No one needs another shred of evidence that SWAT is nothing more than another disgusting branch of the US Gestapo.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
'Just give 'em what they want'
'Just give 'em what they want'
Albuquerque cops have some fatal advice for you. "Your life is not worth just a wallet. Just follow their demands. Be the best witness you possibly can."
Sure... it sounds reasonable- as long as you don't think too much. But, if what the bad guys want is to make sure there are no living witnesses who can identify them- then what? I'm sure they'll not notice you looking them over for identifying features and decide they don't want to risk you being "the best witness" they ever mugged.
This deadly "advice" comes after an early morning mugging spree by a pair of thugs. Three muggings in about 20 minutes. Those should be fatal odds for muggers in New Mexico. Yet the cops and "laws" have managed to make sure bad guys like these have a steady supply of compliant, disarmed victims.
Dare to be different. Be the last target your mugger ever tries to rob.
***********************
Cop's justification in shooting still under investigation
Cop's justification in shooting still under investigation
A cop who shot a man in Albuquerque last year is getting another paid vacation as a result. (Hey, it isn't the police department's money they are handing out.)
There is still some question as to whether the cop shot the man in the back with at least one shot. That would conflict significantly with the official story. Now, cops lie. That much should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. However, nonsensical legalities aside, if a person is trespassing inside a home, and is KNOWN to be the trespasser rather than someone who has legitimate business inside, I don't care if he is shot in the back or between the eyes. He had no business being there, and you can't assume he means you no harm.
This is also why I remain somewhat unconvinced about "proportional response" when an innocent person is attacked. The moment of the attack is not a good time to be second-guessing how much force is appropriate. If you don't want an "unproportional response" to your aggression, theft, or trespass, don't do it. I have no pity for thieves who end up caught in the consequences of their bad choices. It would be better for liberty and justice if the home's resident had shot the invader, of course, yet I'm sure such a justified shooting would have been scrutinized much more closely than the LEO's shooting has been. It just shows how badly "the system" is broken.
A cop who shot a man in Albuquerque last year is getting another paid vacation as a result. (Hey, it isn't the police department's money they are handing out.)
There is still some question as to whether the cop shot the man in the back with at least one shot. That would conflict significantly with the official story. Now, cops lie. That much should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. However, nonsensical legalities aside, if a person is trespassing inside a home, and is KNOWN to be the trespasser rather than someone who has legitimate business inside, I don't care if he is shot in the back or between the eyes. He had no business being there, and you can't assume he means you no harm.
This is also why I remain somewhat unconvinced about "proportional response" when an innocent person is attacked. The moment of the attack is not a good time to be second-guessing how much force is appropriate. If you don't want an "unproportional response" to your aggression, theft, or trespass, don't do it. I have no pity for thieves who end up caught in the consequences of their bad choices. It would be better for liberty and justice if the home's resident had shot the invader, of course, yet I'm sure such a justified shooting would have been scrutinized much more closely than the LEO's shooting has been. It just shows how badly "the system" is broken.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Do you have what you must lack to be a cop?
Do you have what you must lack to be a cop?
I have decided, after much corroborating evidence, that cops are the least-principled people possible. They have to be in order to "do the job" without committing suicide from guilt over what they have done. In just one recent post from a cop (on another site) I read all these opinions:
The "laws" are not their fault, they just enforce them. Government doesn't impose "laws"; "The People" do. "Laws" are a result of "The People ... violating human morals and trust". ..."Times have changed and you MUST roll with it!"... "We must do our job wether (sic) people want us to or not, to keep the peace."
OK, can I gag now? As I have said before, LEOs vastly overestimate their importance to society. Just give one the chance and you will be regaled with fairy tales as to how we'd all be stealing, killing, and raping one another without the cops' big brotherly oversight. In reality, they are as important to civilization as ankle-weights are to an eagle.
In Albuquerque news: A couple of adult brothers have been charged with "negligent child abuse resulting in death". Apparently they were in their mom's yard fighting over money, after drinking, and the 3 year-old daughter of one of the men got upset and ran into the street and was hit by a car. Neither man was driving the car. Neither man chased or threw the child into the street. Was no other adult present? What about the driver of the car? If so, why would some of these other people not be charged as well, as long as bogus charges are being filed? The more victims that can be punished, the better for the State, right?
I'm not saying that they weren't stupid for drinking and fighting over $20. What I am saying is that the facts of the incident do not show "child abuse" by either man by any stretch of the imagination. This is just another example that The State feels the need to criminalize every tragedy.
I have decided, after much corroborating evidence, that cops are the least-principled people possible. They have to be in order to "do the job" without committing suicide from guilt over what they have done. In just one recent post from a cop (on another site) I read all these opinions:
The "laws" are not their fault, they just enforce them. Government doesn't impose "laws"; "The People" do. "Laws" are a result of "The People ... violating human morals and trust". ..."Times have changed and you MUST roll with it!"... "We must do our job wether (sic) people want us to or not, to keep the peace."
OK, can I gag now? As I have said before, LEOs vastly overestimate their importance to society. Just give one the chance and you will be regaled with fairy tales as to how we'd all be stealing, killing, and raping one another without the cops' big brotherly oversight. In reality, they are as important to civilization as ankle-weights are to an eagle.
In Albuquerque news: A couple of adult brothers have been charged with "negligent child abuse resulting in death". Apparently they were in their mom's yard fighting over money, after drinking, and the 3 year-old daughter of one of the men got upset and ran into the street and was hit by a car. Neither man was driving the car. Neither man chased or threw the child into the street. Was no other adult present? What about the driver of the car? If so, why would some of these other people not be charged as well, as long as bogus charges are being filed? The more victims that can be punished, the better for the State, right?
I'm not saying that they weren't stupid for drinking and fighting over $20. What I am saying is that the facts of the incident do not show "child abuse" by either man by any stretch of the imagination. This is just another example that The State feels the need to criminalize every tragedy.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, August 20, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
"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.
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?
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?
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)