Decreasing your local entropy

Decreasing your local entropy


I am a anti-entropist. I constantly try to decrease my local entropy while knowing that in the Universe as a whole, it must increase. I see where people have messed something up or broken it, and I want to fix it even if it is not my responsibility. And I often do.

That is part of why I dislike The State. It breaks the natural order and harms individuals. It is chaos of the worst kind masquerading as order.

Statists lie and pretend that they are fighting entropy, but instead they are accelerating it. Instead of letting human interactions naturally crystallize into the best, most stable, and mutually beneficial forms, The State prevents that spontaneous order and uses "laws" to make a mess of everything; to divorce actions from justified consequences. Then supporters of The State claim that the only alternative is chaos and death. They lie. I do not support their false beliefs. I will not even silently pretend the statists are right to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

* * * *

In Albuquerque news: I've mentioned the counterproductive drive to "do something" previously. The urge rears its empty head once again.

Some bikers in Albuquerque were recruited by an anti-heroin group to get the message out to teens that "heroin is here, it's in on our streets and in our schools". Seriously, I suspect the teens were the first to know. Instead of "breaking the silence" and telling teens what they already know, why not tell them the truth.

Tell them that abusing drugs, or anything, is a stupid thing to do. Tell them that they own their body and have a right to do anything to it they want, including destroying themselves, BUT no one has any obligation to rescue them from their stupid choices. And tell them that The State will kill them to "save them" from drugs, if given half a chance. That's the message that needs to get out there.

*
Donate?

Man stabs man and gets 'creatively' charged

Man stabs man and gets 'creatively' charged


Sometimes, The State's actions seem like the set-up for a joke. After a church service in Albuquerque, a man (who happens to be an ex-convict) stabbed a man who was approaching to greet him. Now, when I used to attend church, I will admit the "greeters" got on my nerves pretty bad a few times, but I was never seriously tempted to stab one.

Obviously, the stabber was soon caught and charged with "aggravated assault and battery with a deadly weapon" (although I still fail to see the point in charging a person with 2 crimes from one act - since I am not afflicted with the insanity of statism). That's not the main stupidity on display here, though. The stabber was also charged with three counts of child abuse because some children saw the stabbing!

Fine. If that's the way they want to play. Then every cop who kicks in a door in a drug raid, especially when it turns out to be the wrong address, needs to be charged with child abuse from this day forward, if any children were present. If they are not so charged, then the statists are exposing themselves (another serious offense) as hypocrites in the extreme.

*
Donate?

In touch with my caveman roots

I am a primitive. I am still too impressed with cordage, blades, and fire. More impressed than seems proper, by modern standards, anyway. There are so many "bigger" things out there now.

Yet, when I see some cordage I always need to examine it. I even feel the urge to collect and keep inferior cordage, like nylon, that I find discarded. I can make my own cordage, but that just makes me appreciate it more. I know how much work goes into it.

And I love knives. A knife is always a good gift in my opinion. And is a nice find. I even find pieces of metal and think about whether they would make a good blade in a survival situation. And I'll chip stones just to see what sort of edge it makes, and how useful it would be.

Then there's Fire. I love to sit beside a small fire I made with primitive methods and watch it flicker and burn. I love the way it sounds and smells. And the things it can be used for.

I would make a good caveman.

The State asks stupid questions

The State asks stupid questions


I see another incident in the Albuquerque news that illustrates a point I have made many times before.

A man was cleaning his gun and accidentally shot his 4-year old son and his mother. Both survived.

The cops admit it was an accidental shooting, but are sending the case to prosecutors to determine whether negligence played a part in the accident.

I can save a lot of taxpayer money right now: Yes, obviously and positively negligence did play a huge part in the accident. Guns don't shoot innocent people by themselves, and people who are not negligent in some way don't shoot innocent people either. So, save yourself the trouble of trying to appear to be "doing something" as prosecutors.

Now that I've settled that question, the other question remains, what is in it for The State if they decide to make a case out of this accident? Money and power, of course. That's all it ever comes down to. Not every accident (if any) needs to become a criminal case and be punished. I don't think this man intended to shoot his relatives, and making an example of him will not prevent this type of accident in the future. Not even in one case. I'll guarantee you the man has learned a valuable lesson and will be more careful from now on (if The State "allows" him to own guns after this). If anyone has a case against this man it is the people he shot. Not The State.

*

Donate?

ABQ 13th in percentage of tax-parasites

ABQ 13th in percentage of tax-parasites


Albuquerque has the dubious distinction of being one of the cities in America where more than 20% of its residents work for government at some level. Albuquerque comes in at number 13, with 21.58% of its workforce being tax-parasites. I'll bet if the accounting considered those "private sector" jobs that could not exist without supporting some government function the percentage would be much higher. But we'll ignore that for now.

That means that the rest of the people in Albuquerque, almost four out of five, are carrying those freeloaders. There is a better than one in five chance that you are parasitically living off your neighbors and the fruits of their production. But no one seriously considers taxation to be theft and those who live on government paychecks to be parasites. That's right. "No one" does.

*
Donate?

I am 'no one'

I am 'no one'


I have discovered that according to the statists, I do not exist. That should mean they don't expect me to pay taxes or be bound by their "laws". Right?

What proof do I have that I am a non-existent "no one" to the statists? Consider these statements I have heard many times over the course of the years coming from them:

"No one wants to live without police."

"No one wants to live in a town without code enforcement."

"No one wants mentally ill people to be able to have guns."

"No one wants felons to be able to legally own guns."

"No one wants to completely end taxation."

"No one seriously thinks it would be a good idea to shut down the government."

"No one would want to do without government free [sic] roads and free [sic] schools for the children."

"No one really wants to make all drugs legal."

"No one wants to remove government oversight from businesses that make our food and drugs."

In all the above statements, I AM "no one". I have advocated all of those very things in the virtual pages of The Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner in the past year and a half, and in my blog for years before that.
Are you also "no one" in at least some of the above?

*
Donate?

More of those 'rare' bad apples?

More of those 'rare' bad apples?


An Albuquerque cop is a "person of interest" in his wife's 2007 shooting death and may be indicted by a grand jury early next year. And other ABQ cops, rather than just protecting this cop with words of support and denial, may have actually destroyed evidence that could have convicted him. "Thin blue line" indeed.

Do you really want these people to have "legal" access to weapons you are denied the liberty (in violation of your rights) to own and to carry? Do you really think cops are more honest and trustworthy than you or me? I'm not saying he committed the murder, but obviously some people know him and suspect he would be capable of it. I don't want that sort of person to be around me if I am forbidden defensive weaponry at least equal to his. And I certainly don't want him to have any "authority".

I keep wondering- what is it about all these cases involving cops taking so many years to get prosecuted? Preferential treatment again? There has got to be a separation of court and State. IF justice is to be the goal.


*
Donate?

Do accused cops get preferential treatment?

Do accused cops get preferential treatment?


An Albuquerque LEO accused of raping a young relative on several occasions, both before and after she was 13 years old, and then intimidating her into remaining silent, has been placed on "administrative leave" after being indicted. He can't carry a weapon (they mean "legally", I suppose) and can't investigate crimes as a cop for the duration. I wonder if he still gets to receive his duly-earned stolen money "paycheck" until he is either found guilty or cleared, or if his "leave" dries up that well.

I have no idea if he actually did it or not, but I do tend to suspect he is not getting the same treatment at the hands of The State that someone like you or me would be getting if we were facing the same accusations. It sure seems like he is getting preferential treatment to me.

Even people with supposed images of young people on their computers, who aren't even suspected of actually touching or photographing anyone themselves, get harsher treatment- without delay- at the hands of The State than this cop is getting. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Only, some ganders are more "equal" than we geese because they have a badge.

*
Donate?

Do-it-yourself statism

Do-it-yourself statism


If you are rich and think "the rich", including yourself, should pay higher taxes, what is stopping you from sending big checks to government right now? Why do you need a "law" ordering you to do it? As long as you don't force people who have a different idea of how to use their own money to go along, you are within your rights to waste your money however you want. (And make no mistake, sending the money to government is a waste unless you like bloated organizations which spend little of the money on the actual work they claim the money is going toward.) Once you start telling others how they must use their money and advocating "laws" to force them to do as you wish, you become an evil parasite; deserving of a parasite's fate.

This "do-it-yourselfism" could even be adapted to other areas of life.

If you think you have a "right" to control what your neighbor does with his own property, why not walk up to his door and try to force him, personally, to do as you wish? Why take the pathetic coward's way and send heavily armed thugs in your place? Sending thugs doesn't absolve you of your evil act in the slightest, no matter what you may pretend. You are just hiding your evil behind your hired goons.

If you hate for people to own and to carry guns, try to take them away yourself. And do it without a gun so as to not be a hypocrite. Pass all the counterfeit "laws" you want, but no one is obligated to obey a "law" that is counter to natural human rights- one of the most basic of which is the right to possess the best available tools for self-defense, and use them when needed against ANY attack.

If you support the War on (some) Drugs, throw away all your medications. Every single one of them. Don't take drugs. Then physically attack any family member or friend who doesn't subscribe to your silliness. Order them to only eat and drink things you approve of under threat of death. Don't send others to kick in doors in the middle of the night. Do it yourself if you approve. There are probably lots of people who could provide you with a list of houses in Albuquerque the cops are probably planning to conduct an illegal early-morning raid against. Put your life on the line for your beliefs, and accept the consequences of your acts.

Yes, by embracing collectivism - and attempting to force it on people who are too sensible for such simplistic nonsense - you show yourself to be a bad person. But at least you would be an "honest" bad person if you openly admit your goals and carry them out yourself instead of hiding behind the myth of the legitimacy of government.

*
A reader suggests, in the vein of a "gaggle of geese" a name for a group of cops: "a thug". I can imagine it now... "Did you hear that thug of cops over at the donut shop all arguing among themselves over how to split up the latest drug bust loot?"

*

Donate?

Another aircraft in the news

Another aircraft in the news


Speaking of aircraft troubles, the Albuquerque Police Department's aerial tyranny unit has been used to drop a football into a high school homecoming game in Rio Rancho. Now an APD employee is in trouble.

What's the problem?

A government agency which claims "authority" and is based upon coercion and paid for through theft, was used to promote a collectivist sports event (which would not necessarily be a bad thing if it were completely voluntary and paid for voluntarily) at another government institution which trains people to accept "authority" and is also based upon coercion and paid for through theft. Seems like a match made in some mythical realm to me. Complaining about this seems like complaining that your left foot goes everywhere your right foot goes.

Why worry that "it doesn't send a good message to the public", who might think "we probably could have used our resources in a better way"? That money is not your resources. If that is a real worry to you, stop stealing. And as for "a better way", all things considered I'd much rather have the APD eating donuts in a donut shop or visiting football games instead of enforcing counterfeit "laws" against my neighbors. It would keep the harm to a minimum.

*
Donate?

Aerial trespasser shot at

Aerial trespasser shot at


An Albuquerque gas balloon pilot has been shot at as his balloon drifted over a corn field north of Lubbock, Texas.

If his balloon was over the property of another, then he was trespassing, and his act of calling enforcers to the scene was probably not justified. Of course, it wasn't particularly nice of the shooter to fire on the trespassing balloon, either. This is why I often include trespassing as an act that can justify a forceful response, but usually with the qualifier "sometimes" attached. I do think that there should be some ill-intent involved before shooting is the appropriate response to a trespasser.

A lost person who is not damaging your property should probably just be told to leave, or escorted off. I have led lost people from my property in the past and made it into a pleasant experience for us both. (And not all of them were cute girls, either.) There is no need, in most instances, to get twitchy about it.

I wonder if the violent response to the balloon may have been an unintended consequence of the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. If the corn field held a cash crop made artificially profitable by prohibition, an exaggerated response might have been inevitable, since discovery would have bad consequences (not that shooting at someone is the smartest way to avoid LEO attention).

A balloonist or two drifting over your land are technically trespassing, since I don't buy the lie that the sky is State property. However, I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as long as they weren't government employees. I don't think balloons can be steered all that well, and I don't think there is any harmful intent in most cases. However, I wouldn't support the arrest of a person who thought differently about their property rights.

*

Donate

Police chief on "code enforcement"

Here is the police chief's response to my column against "code enforcement" (with my comments in parentheses):

Some residents have bridled at the enforcement of the city codes while others
insist that it's long overdue.

("some residents", or only me?)

We've all seen cities in which there were no minimum standards for neighbors to
observe, where junked cars cause traffic hazards in the streets,...

(No, I have never seen a free city such as you describe. Where are these places? Why is a "junked car" more of a hazard than a 2011 Mercedes parked in the street? I can easily drive around either one, just as I do all the cop cars parked in the street at that one particular house in town. Why are these parked cop cars not a hazard to traffic?)

...where buildings lacking in repair drag down the property values of whole
neighborhoods,...

(So, buy them, fix them up, and raise the property values without using the threat of coercion against the owner. If they are dragging down property values, they should be very affordable. Right?)

...where mosquitoes breed disease,...

(I already addressed the real problems like this in my original article. Using voluntary cooperation rather than brute force.)

...and where homeless animals wander in hunger and misery through their short
and violent lives.

(So let people shoot or adopt the "homeless animals", once again solving the problem without spending one dime of stolen "tax" money or using coercion against anyone. If the animals truly are homeless they are the property of no one and these acts would not violate anyone's rights the way the city's methods do.)

A community like that is not were anyone would choose to live and not something
that the residents of Farwell would ever accept.

(Really? If that's true who are these "some residents" who have "bridled" over your enforcement emphasis? A free community, free of tax parasites who feel it is OK for them to trespass and violate property rights in others ways is exactly where I would choose to live and what I would enthusiastically embrace, not just "accept". Don't assume you understand me, or can speak for me, you tyrant.)

The codes of any city are not designed to establish a dictatorial rule over
citizens, nor would there be any benefit to the city if they did.

(They may not be "designed to establish a dictatorial rule", but that is the real world result, isn't it? And there is a benefit to "the city" at the expense of the residents: money and power. You wouldn't be doing it if this were not the case. And don't lie and claim that isn't true.)

Farwell's officers are only attempting to perform the minimum duty of any
government, that is to ensure that every individual can live in peace and
harmony with his neighbors.

(That is NOT "the minimum duty of any government"; protecting the rights of everyone from being violated by anyone is the minimum duty AND also the maximum duty. It is the ONLY legitimate duty possible for any government. This "code enforcement" nonsense actually violates that duty. Plus, using coercion and threats of violence are not ways to promote peace and harmony. Respecting property rights, and all other rights, of all individuals, even when they do things that are within their rights but that you don't approve of, are the only way to ensure peace and harmony. Your rights end where someone else's begin, no matter what you want. Your enforcement results in suspicion, discord, and could even result in actual violence.)

The citizen who finds a neighbor is intruding onto his property through his
failure to observe even the minimum level of repair or hygiene that might be
expected should not have to deal with the problem himself.

(Why not deal with it himself? That's his job, and no one else's, if it is something that should legitimately be dealt with. Some people might just need to grow up and either take responsibility for themselves or live with their cowardice. And a big part of being a responsible human is accepting that there are some things that are absolutely none of your business.)

Residents can be assured that code enforcement is intended to accomplish no
more than that level of law and order and mutual respect that are the foundation
of any happy community.

(No thank you. I have seen the results of "law and order" and the mass graves that result, and I want no part of it. There can be no mutual respect as long as one party thinks programs such as this are acceptable and OK.)

Farwell Police Chief LK [name withheld to protect the guilty]

Absent principles, power does not have to 'corrupt' to be bad

Absent principles, power does not have to 'corrupt' to be bad


Thank your lucky stars, or at least the nature of reality, that I don't have political power and that I'm a libertarian. If I had the power and I believed the lie that political power gives a person (or group of people) the right or the authority to impose their opinions on others who are harming no one (in other words, if I were as evil, narcissistic, and delusional as past and current congresscritters and presidents), what "laws" would I impose?

First I would make it illegal to mow lawns. Probably outlaw the disgusting things altogether. Native species look better (in my opinion), take less resources and effort to keep alive, and are more sensible. Nor do they "go kudzu" on you. I'd probably outlaw all exotic species of outdoor plants, other than food crops. If it didn't grow right here 600 years ago, get rid of it or move it indoors.

Next I'd make it illegal to go out of your house without carrying a functional and loaded gun. There's no excuse for it anyway. If you can't be trusted with a gun, you simply can't be trusted. Period.

Then, littering would be a capital offense. In fact there would be a bounty on litterers. And since everyone would be required to be armed there would be no excuse to not collect.

Plus, I'd look after my own financial concerns. Everyone would be required to buy multiple copies of all my books, assuming that as a statist monster I would bother writing any books. I certainly wouldn't be writing the same ones.

The nation's pastimes would not escape my notice, either. The FOX network would be given a choice: put Firefly back on the air with an adequate budget and full cooperation with the cast and crew's desires and needs, and air it in the best timeslot imaginable, or lose your FCC license. (Yeah, I'd still love the show, I might just be rooting for the Feds in this case.)

There are probably a lot more nasty and evil things I would do, given a complete lack of principles and the power to "legally" damage the lives of others. I have strong opinions, as do most people, but I know my opinions are just that- opinions, and it would be wrong of me to impose my wishes on others who are not attacking, defrauding, stealing, or trespassing.

Yet, none of those things I mentioned are any more insane or harmful than actual "laws" passed by politicians and bureaucrats (and enforced by LEOs) in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Washington DC, and supported by regular "citizens". I mean, really, killing people for having some dried leaves in their possession? Who's the monster?

*

Donate

Three schools get new warning labels

Three schools get new warning labels


Three Albuquerque schools were tagged with graffiti described as "racist" and "sexually graphic". Since I think "public" schools probably deserve warning labels anyway, maybe this graffiti can serve that purpose.

After all, government indoctrination centers- "schools"- do serve as racism dissemination centers, and help reinforce it in the inmates.

And, like it or not, "public schools" are where most kids will learn about sex in one way or another if parents delay artificially the natural lessons they should be teaching at appropriate levels of physical, emotional, and mental development (which are far younger than parents might want to admit). Besides, "public" schools are the reproductive organs of The State.

And since these "schools" have no real owner who was harmed, who would seek restitution?

I don't think it is right or nice to tag or otherwise alter property that is not yours, but government schools are dependent upon making people believe that violations of property rights are OK under certain circumstances. I find it ironic that their supporters complain when people learn the lesson too well and act on it.

*

Donate?

"Code enforcement"

This is my latest column (10-7-2010) in the local paper, which has no website to link to:

I care how Farwell looks. I probably care more than the vast majority of Farwell residents, and I can offer concrete proof of my concern, backed up by my actions, to those who doubt me. However, I care about liberty even more.

All socialism has the myth of "the common good", also known as "the general welfare", at its heart [and nothing but socialism can result from it]. Socialism is wrong, even when you approve and even if you benefit from it. It places the desires of "society", or even just a portion of society, above the inalienable rights of the individual.

So I am particularly appalled by the recent emphasis on "code enforcement". That's socialist-speak for "Violating your property rights on behalf of The Majority using the threat of force". It is wrong even when it has been made "legal". Liberty is sometimes messy, but it is still preferable to, and the ethical opposite of, "neat and orderly" socialism.

I understand that some people get offended when a neighbor has an unkempt lawn or a junky car in their yard. Yet, what another person does with their own property, even to the point of destroying it, is no one else's business as long as no one else is being harmed- and being offended doesn't qualify as harm. If a neighbor's junk is winding up on your property, or causing you harm through attracted vermin or mosquito breeding, you have the right to take action to solve that particular problem or seek restitution. Until that happens their property is none of your business, no matter what.

"Codes" are just a way of taking control of a person's property away from them and giving it to a mythical entity called "the majority". It is wrong even if you like it and even if you can come up with reasonable-sounding justifications. I repudiate this violation of rights. Don't enforce the "codes" against my neighbors on my behalf.

Update: Check out the police chief's response, along with my added comments here.

Deadly ABQ motorcycle crash illustrates flaws of statism

Deadly ABQ motorcycle crash illustrates flaws of statism


Two people who were "speeding" and not wearing helmets were killed in a motorcycle crash in Albuquerque Saturday afternoon. Some control-freak types see this as an excuse to allow government to control what people do with their own bodies, for "the common good". They may claim that injuries cost "society" if the person isn't insured. They may claim that as long as government "owns" the road it can make the rules. And in making these claims they would be missing the point.

First of all there should be no government welfare that provides medical care through coercive financing. If charities, hospitals, or philanthropists want to donate time or money to take care of people who can't afford it, they can. Yet they wouldn't be forced to help those who they feel were injured by making life choices they don't personally like if they don't wish to. Anti-gun extremists could deny care to those who injure themselves in shooting accidents or while hunting, and those who feel everyone should wear a helmet could deny funds to those injured while not wearing one.

Second, government doesn't really own roads since government owns NOTHING it did not first steal or "buy" (or maintain) with money it stole. Thieves do not get to control the use of the property they stole. Private road owners could set any requirements for using their roads they wish (as long as their "requirement" doesn't violate a basic human right- which is never up for negotiation), and their customers could choose to use a competitor if they don't like the rules.

Since these conditions are not met it shows deeper problems that need to be addressed before the finer details can be debated in any meaningful way. That a cure reveals another disease doesn't discredit the original cure; it shows something else that needs to be addressed before the problem is truly solved.

*

Donate?

Win ANY argument...

Recently on Examiner I have seen ads for some product that promises to help you "win any argument".

Isn't that counterproductive? I don't want to simply win any argument. I want to be right. If I am wrong I want to be shown where and why I am wrong so that I can change my opinion and be right. Simply winning any argument won't help me do that in any way.

Plus, as long as the opposition doesn't run away, I can already win any argument that I am confident enough to get in to.

Only ignorance justifies socialism

Only ignorance justifies socialism


I'm still mulling over recent thoughts. I understand that "the majority" in America, "conservatives" and "liberals", now support socialism, although they deny it is socialism. Popularity or acceptance doesn't make something right. Property rights are inconvenient if they would get in the way of the imaginary collective's wishes. So, for one example, we have property "codes". Living on stolen property is acceptable as long as you call the stolen goods "social security" or "farm subsidies". Or "a paycheck" if you work for the government in any capacity. I try really hard to understand.

I can understand supporting socialism- theft and coercion excused by "the common good"- as long as you don't know any better. Ignorance is a legitimate excuse. Perhaps you have never really thought about it. That's understandable. Life throws a lot of things your way that must be thought about and considered immediately for survival. Philosophy- right and wrong- gets put on the back burner or a religion gets substituted for real thought. I've been there.

However, once someone has pointed out the truth you must make a choice. Pretending you don't have to make a choice is the same as making the choice for socialism. You must either admit you approve of theft and coercion as long as it benefits you personally, and is perhaps done by a clown in a government costume, or you have to turn from things you now know to be wrong. And if you approve or accept theft and coercion in these supposedly limited circumstances, how can you really condemn them in "other" circumstances that are really not as different as you pretend?

You do have a choice to make, if you haven't already made it, and your choice shows what kind of person you truly are. Your choice and your consistency in living that choice will determine the future of Albuquerque (or your town, wherever that may be) and the world. If you accept theft and coercion, knowing what you know, even if you have a different opinion about it, then at least be honest enough to admit where you stand so the rest of us will know you are a potential threat and can watch you closely. But maybe you will be brave enough, adult enough, and generous enough to embrace liberty. Will you stand up for liberty even if it is inconvenient?

Let's spread liberty around the globe. Nothing happens that doesn't happen one individual at a time.

*
Donate

Consistency

Consistency. Staying true to the principles you claim to value. It is a rare thing anymore. Consistency doesn't necessarily mean you are right; you be can perfectly consistently wrong.
However, if you are inconsistent, you are obviously wrong somewhere.

Saying you love liberty, but then supporting "laws" that destroy liberty for some other people who are not harming anyone is not consistent. Looking down on a welfare mom while collecting your own farm subsidies or Social Security is not consistent. Saying that people should be "free to choose", until they choose things that offend or scare you, is not consistent.

Yet, while I have met people who seem consistently "libertarian" (something that can be done without much effort, as long as you overcome your conditioning and think matters through), I have yet to find anyone who is a completely consistent "authoritarian". They always make exceptions for themselves, and often for their friends. This is how you can tell that they are wrong somewhere, and that deep down they know it.

The inconsistencies that make a person take on authoritarian attributes confuse me. I respect consistency. I may hate a person's stance on a particular issue, but if they are completely consistent, I can at least respect the fact that they are not a hypocrite.

This doesn't mean that everyone who claims the label "libertarian" is consistent, just that it is more obvious and glaringly ridiculous when they aren't. All rights for everyone, everywhere, for all times without exception. That's where consistency dwells. Any "but" shows the flaws that are still present in the person's thinking.

*Note: This was previously published in The State Line Tribune a while back.

Clinging to their favorite crisis and avoiding solutions

Clinging to their favorite crisis and avoiding solutions

I am sometimes surprised that when offered a real, workable solution to problems which have been worried about for years, people pretend the solution was never offered. They don't even skip a beat in their continued hand-wringing over their favorite "crisis".

Here in my little town the school superintendant is upset over the utter failure of public schools and is asking people to contact the legislators to get them to implement some symbolic gesture that will solve nothing. He wants to make the legislators proclaim public education, and funding those "schools", to be a priority. I have brought up the point in the local paper that socialist schools are the problem, and getting government out of the mix is the solution. I know he reads the paper. He pretends there is no viable solution other than more of the same.

Here in my little town there is a sudden new emphasis on "code enforcement" (because a new enforcer was hired and something must be found for it to do), which I have pointed out is collectivist-speak for "Violating your property rights for 'the common good' using the threat of force". I do more to help clean up around this town than the vast majority of the residents combined, and can prove it to any doubters. I care how this town looks. But I use no force or coercion. In my latest column in the local paper I stated "Do not enforce 'codes' against my neighbors on my behalf". The police chief countered with some drivel about how without code enforcement, our town would be ugly and dangerous and no place anyone would want to live. In fact, he completely glossed over or ignored my point that "the common good" (or "the general welfare" as it is sometimes called) is at the very heart of all socialism and that nothing but socialism can come from it.

Every day I address the problems of Albuquerque in this column and offer solutions that would make those problems a thing of the past. I would be surprised if my opinions didn't get lost in the noise of such a big city, but here in my little town there is no excuse.

I realize I am working from a false premise. I assume that people are more like me than they really are. I assume they see a problem and want to actually solve it. Yet, I have known this isn't the case for many years. People fear or ignore solutions because they enjoy keeping the crisis around for entertainment. It gives them a purpose. They enjoy complaining and suggesting band-aid "fixes" that will only make the problem worse in the long run. It keeps providing them with crisis fodder in a way that a real solution would not.

So, I have a question with regard to this little town where I reside: Do I continue to point out the previously-offered solution again and again to counter each new collectivist whine, or do I rest content in the knowledge that the solution has been offered if they care to open their eyes and look, and move on to the next issue?

*
Donate?

Bureaucrats are stupid

Bureaucrats are stupid


Almost every inmate of public schools has been either the victim of a bully, or was a bully. I know I was victimized more than once. And when I had the gall to fight back, I was taught by the school that it was just as wrong to defend myself as to do the attacking. After this lesson, I carried a large hunting knife with me at school (which I was smart enough to never mention or show). If I was going to be in trouble for defending myself anyway, I was going to make sure I gave the authorities a reason to punish me if I were attacked again. Unintended consequences.

So, now the brilliant minds (cough cough) at Albuquerque Public Schools have decided a website is the way to address bullying. Idiots. I'm sure their "information" and advice of "who to call" will make all the difference. Don't encourage people to stand up for themselves, but to be dependent on someone else to solve their problems. We see how well this dependency and weakness works in other areas of life, right?

The only way to end bullying is to end the disparity in strength. Bullies do not listen to rational reasons they should be nice. They only understand a target that is able to end the attack. Either through determination and confidence or by striking back when struck, effectively and decisively. In many cases, this means the intended victim needs weapons. Either tools or training to end the attack. Sharp #2 pencils, long and new, can be good self defense tools and don't trigger metal detectors if your school has given up all pretense that it isn't a prison. Never forget that no matter where you may be, the world is completely filled with things that make wonderful improvised weaponry. It is not possible for the anti-human control freaks to remove them all. Of course, this doesn't fit in with the social nannies who want everything all warm and fuzzy and based on the philosophy of "you both share the blame, now hug and make up".

A website will solve nothing if it doesn't address the reality of the situation. And coming from the bubble-wrapped collectivists of "public education" I expect nothing less than undiluted stupidity.

Get government OUT of education: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm

*

Donate

How to fix the police

How to fix the police


I am enthusiastic about offering solutions to the problems of statism I point out, Sometimes the solution is between the lines; sometimes, as in this article, I will lay it right out for you to see.

Unless you have been asleep or in deep authority-worshiping denial, you have to admit that having police is a bad idea. It simply doesn't work as advertised. It doesn't help anyone but The State. A look at the police in even such a limited geographical area as the city of Albuquerque should demonstrate that beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even just the past couple of weeks of Albuquerque news should prove my point. The best solution is to immediately disband all police departments and simply walk away; not replacing them with anything. Fearful sheep might be reluctant to slaughter the wolf, trample the shearer, and live free, so what is the next best solution.

Could police be privatized and reined in? Maybe. Pretending that the current method of funding police through theft were ended, and they were either paid by subscription or voluntary contributions, what would their proper role in a free society be? Certainly not arresting people for crimes against the State, such as tax offenses, gun violations, lacking a permit, using or selling drugs, not wearing a seat belt, smoking in a bar, free market sex, speeding, or other victimless acts. In fact, probably not arresting people for anything at all. That is your job and mine if we see an act that can't be made right any other way (which is extremely rare). In a free society cops could do the paperwork for us after we stopped the bad guy.

Police could also perhaps help people who are in trouble, but who can't turn to anyone else for some reason. Such as those who have no friends left after a lifetime of taking advantage of others or just being a jerk. Even these people might deserve some help occasionally.

The primary use of police would be to do the kind of things only a "local" with a lot of time on his hands and no pressing need to be doing anything in particular could do. They could help find lost kittens. They could give directions to the nearest marijuana cafe. They could give a safety pin to someone with a broken zipper. They could jump-start a car with a dead battery. They could give a ride home to a shopper weighed down with grocery bags who is caught in a sudden downpour without a car. In other words they would again be limited to serving and protecting as they were before they became militarized swaggering thugs sheltered from the consequences of their disgusting acts by the badge they wear.

Anything else and they are simply proving themselves to be harmful to civilization, and sealing their eventual fate.

*

Donate

Former cop finds old habits hard to break

Former cop finds old habits hard to break


I could claim to be surprised, but I'd be lying. A former cop, 15 years with the Albuquerque Police Department, has been arrested for robbing a drug store. For the drugs, of course.

When you train people that it is OK for them to run around and force people to comply with their demands at gunpoint, and train them that it is OK to live off of stolen property, it will either attract this sort of character, or change ethically-ambivalent people into this type. It will give them a sense of entitlement and a callous attitude about the value of people and a disregard for the property of others. I'm just surprised it doesn't happen more. Or does it without being reported?

*

Donate!

Armed attack on New Mexico school

Armed attack on New Mexico school


Heavily armed thugs in bullet-proof vests raided a middle school near Espanola (way north of Albuquerque) last month. The parasites thought they had spotted marijuana plants while unethically spying from their airborne anti-liberty vehicles. Instead they risked killing young students and teachers over tomato plants. And, unbelievably, they thought the risk was justified!

Every single one of these "officers" should be fired and jailed, individually- in cells containing victims they have personally helped kidnap and who recognize their assailant. Instead, they are just embarrassed over the "mix up". Embarrassed? They should be so humiliated that they commit suicide over the shame associated with their inexcusable actions!

This is where the evil and stupid War on (some) Drugs inevitably leads. It is past time to end it, and divide the assets of all drug enforcement agencies between all the victims of drug "laws".

One last thought occurs to me: I want to know why this information is just now being made available. Who was hiding this? And why? Why did the school employees or students not spread the news of this endangerment of innocent lives? Why was the news media not doing their job? Did I simply miss this headline-worthy story while everyone else knew about it?

*

Donate!

My message of liberty and responsibility to the world

My message of liberty and responsibility to the world

You are humans first. And second and third, and so on, for that matter. I don't care what secondary designation you choose, be it "Christian", atheist, American, Chinese, cop, shoe salesman, "Black", Asian, straight, or gay. Those don't matter one bit if you ignore your humanity. As a human it is your obligation to respect the rights of everyone else, whether you want to or not, and to live with the consequences of your evil acts if you choose to violate the rights of others. If you believe that rights don't really exist outside the mind, then that means you can have no right to impose on anyone else under any justification. It means you can have no authority. Regardless, you have no authority to Rule anyone but yourself. A government paycheck can't give you that authority. The only thing a government job can do is to make you subservient to everyone who is not a government employee. If you forget this fact, or start behaving otherwise, you are scum. You are a festering boil on the flesh of your species. No "law" that attempts to regulate or punish anything outside a real wrong- aggression, theft, fraud, or trespassing- is a legitimate law, and anyone who proposes, advocates, passes, or enforces one of these counterfeit "laws" is an enemy to the species. My species. Such a person is no better than a tapeworm, and probably worse. The tapeworm at least has no ill intent, nor does it pretend to be helping the host. You have no obligation to any imaginary political entity no matter where you were born. If you choose to pledge allegiance to one, realize you are admitting you place thugs and coercion above non-aggressive individuals. You are declaring your enmity to the rest of us, and to our liberty. Collectivism is destructive and stupid, whether it is "E pluribus unum" or "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". They are two ways of saying the same disgusting thing. That the individual has no inherent worth beyond his value to the collective. No piece of paper or contract written and agreed to by people long-dead can apply to you in any way, and you will not impose it on me against my will. If you are scared enough that you want a wall around your property, fine. Just don't involve the rest of us who are not subject to your childish fears. Don't wall me in for I have no need for your type of "safety". If someone doesn't speak the same language as you, it doesn't mean they are talking about you or plotting against you. Either find a way to communicate or go on your way. Their speech does not harm you in the slightest way. Get over it. If someone doesn't have the same idea of Sky Daddy that you do, you'll be OK. There are bigger issues than "morality", such as actual right and wrong. Don't impose your superstition on them; it will only make them hate you. But don't give them the tool, government, to force you to live according to their superstitions, either. If you don't trust the rest of us with guns or other tools of human ingenuity you are welcome to stay at home, cowering in your cave-like shelter- watching TV, safe from the real people surrounding you. If you choose to think of yourself as a victim, then don't be surprised if less-than-nice people victimize you. Your life is in your hands. We, the good people, outnumber the bad people. Both freelance and governmental thugs. And, don't be surprised if we outgun them as well. After all, there is nothing that bad people possess that the good people can't take back if given a reason. It seems as though the bad people are trying their hardest to give good people a reason. They are trying to shove the answer to the "Claire Wolfe question" in our faces. But we are better than them. We are stronger than them. And when they force us to act it will be too late for them to claim they were only kidding. If you want to change the world, change your "nation". To change America, change your state. To change New Mexico, change your town. To change Albuquerque, change yourself. Stop pretending coercion is OK if done "officially" and "legally". Reject it in all your interactions and accept it nowhere. Purge it from your very being. Embrace liberty instead.

*

Please help!

Property rights, responsibility, and cattle

Property rights, responsibility, and cattle


Cattle keep wandering into an Albuquerque suburban neighborhood, and the residents don't like it.

They do have a right to not have other people's property trespass and damage their property, but I also think if you move into a cattle-intensive area you need to know what you're getting in to. It's like moving into the desert and complaining about sand or the lack of rain.

New Mexico "law" says it is the homeowners' responsibility to build a fence if they don't like having the cattle come in their yard. Regardless of "the law", common sense and decency would seem to indicate this is the better response than turning to government coercion. The ranchers should do all they can to prevent the trespassing cattle, and should offer to pay for any damages no matter what the "law" requires. It's the right thing to do. Turning to government is always the wrong thing to do.

When I lived in Colorado, the ranchers would drive their cattle down the highway past my house a couple of times a year. They had been doing so for generations. It would have been silly of me to move there and then whine about it. They tried to keep their cattle on the road, but since cattle do have minds of their own, they sometimes do things the humans responsible for them don't want them to do. Such as trot off the highway and into my yard. So what? I'm a big boy and if it was that upsetting to me I am fully capable of building a fence. And so are the residents of North Meadows.


(I almost tagged this post under "immigration")

*
Please help!

In the wake of Obama- more bags of hot air

In the wake of Obama- more bags of hot air

After days and days of Obamania, the Albuquerque news has turned to other bags of hot air. But these are more pleasant bags of hot air than politicians, and not dangerous except to those who choose to associate with them. And no one is forced to associate with them if they'd rather not. That's refreshing hot air.

I have no clue what all is involved in the planning of an event such as the Balloon Fiesta, but I'm sure it is a daunting job to plan and organize and run. I also wonder how much unnecessary red tape is imposed by government. I hate to think of all the government agencies that insist on having their egos stroked by "requiring" permits and licenses and fees. Not to mention the silly "laws" that are enforced against the balloonists.

It's amazing that big events like this can still be carried out under the US Police State. But I am glad they can.

*

Please help!

Budget shortfall presents opportunity

Budget shortfall presents opportunity


Albuquerque Public Schools may soon be laying off teachers due to a shortfall of stolen loot. APS is faced with the options of asking The State to steal more on their behalf, cutting extra-curricular activities (which may be great, but do not belong under the control, or finances, of schools), or getting rid of teachers. Of course, instead of using merit to determine which teachers will keep their jobs, APS will use the poor criteria of "seniority".

Teachers are upset, as would be anyone facing the loss of their job. But job loss, at least for the good teachers, is not inevitable. There is a fantastic solution: sell off (or hand over) the so-called "public schools". Then, for the schools that intend to stick with the old method of using teachers and students in classrooms, there will be lots of new job openings. Let the teachers apply for the new jobs. Chances are they could earn a larger paycheck under the new arrangement anyway. Everyone wins. Except The State, and the unfit teachers.

Government has no business being in the business of education. In fact, according to the Constitution, it is illegal since nowhere in that document are public schools specifically authorized. This is an opportunity. Set the children free from the government indoctrination centers, get government out of education, get schools out of the business of extra-curricular activities, and get serious about educating Albuquerque and America. Problem, solved.

*

Please help!

Known burglar set free. You know what to do

Known burglar set free. You know what to do


The Albuquerque Police Chief is upset that a man who is accused of over 50 burglaries was let out of jail due to a deal he made with The State. That is perfectly understandable.

I wonder if he would be just as upset if the next time this crook broke into a place, he encountered an armed property owner he didn't know was around and was summarily removed from the gene pool. Or if he had his head architecture renovated by a well-designed booby trap as he broke in. Would the chief seek to punish the property owner for defending his property?

The crook joined forces with The State by turning in his accomplices, and that was a big part of the reason he was let out. Won't this result in a net decrease in the number of thieves on the street? And if this man is known to be a crook, won't it be easy to keep an eye on him from now on? Why not publicize his picture so that everyone will know who the man is and what he chooses to do? That way people can exercise their right of association with regard to the thief.

Maybe the chief is afraid that such actions would make his enforcers more irrelevant. Or give victims of ALL forms of theft new ideas.

*
Please help!

Is a sheriff better than you or me?

Is a sheriff better than you or me?


Enforcers think they are better than you and me. Need proof? Sandoval County Sheriff John Paul Trujillo was recently caught by state police speeding through a construction zone in Albuquerque and was found to have expired out-of-state license plates on his vehicle. The plates were not even for his vehicle at all, but were borrowed from a friend. How long had he gotten away with this "crime" before getting caught? We may never know. So, now the sheriff is in trouble from another chapter of his own gang.

Of course, The State is wrong to pretend it has the authority to force individuals to pay for, and display, license plates on our private vehicles. If they want to make that requirement for all vehicles "purchased" with our stolen money for "official use only", that is their business.

The State is also wrong to set speed limits. Most people automatically drive at the speed they are most comfortable with, regardless of the speed limit. Speed limits, in my experience, are a hazard because they distract your attention from control of the vehicle by adding an arbitrary variable that has no bearing on your operational safety or responsibility. At whatever speed you choose to drive, if you cause harm, you are accountable. It's as simple as that... or should be. Instead The State will waylay you for "speeding", aggress against you or steal from you, and add any penalties for harm you do cause, no matter if you are obeying the counterfeit "law" or not. It's quite a lucrative scam when you think about it.

However, as long as the LEOs violate your rights and mine in the name of "the common good", it is good that an enforcer is facing the same fate. It will be interesting to see if his punishment is identical to the punishment that would be dealt to you or me if we had done the same thing. I wouldn't bet the saloon on it.

*

Please help!

Reality or politics?

Reality or politics?


I'm glad, in a way, to see that the Albuquerque news has returned to addressing reality, rather than Obamality. The bad thing is, this reality is concerning the suffering of innocent people. Lost balloonists, and dead toddlers, and the loss of local jobs that government policies have made inevitable. In that case I guess it would be better to have no real news to report and keep focusing on the putrid emanations of The Anointed One.

Real, innocent people are what matters in this world, and it is better to be concerned over such things than to care about how to get your piece of the action from the politicians and bureaucrats who are busy stealing it "on your behalf" (while skimming a sizeable cut for themselves and their cronies, of course). What really matters is completely different from what lying politicians believe matters.

Real life. This is just real people concerned about the events that affect their everyday lives. No one wants to be forced to worry about politics. Yet, for our own self defense we must, at times, focus on it. We need to know what new violation of our individual human rights is being dreamed up by the enemies of civilization in government offices and legislatures across America. Sometimes we may be able to nip it in the bud if we know what is going down. Just think what would have happened if Americans in 1776 had been able to stop the Constitutional Conspiracy that stole liberty from them and their descendants. In other cases, it is good to know what normal, voluntary, non-harmful actions you need to be secretive about to avoid being kidnapped by thugs in uniform.

When politics and real life meet, tragedy is the result. There is enough tragedy without adding unnecessarily to the suffering. Coercion against the innocent is never OK, especially not for the purpose of taking advantage of them or violating their rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It's time for Statists to grow up.

*
Please help!

Libertarians: 'selfish' and 'childish'?

Libertarians: 'selfish' and 'childish'?


The news in Albuquerque is still dominated by the lingering aroma of The Anointed One's visit. Reminiscent of a dead skunk on the highway, the fumes just won't clear. The difference is that I actually enjoy a slight smell of skunk. Anyway, back to The Deceiver in Chief. What he said while in town seems to generate a lot of discussion. I can't understand why since everything he has said in the past turned out to be lies. Just assume the same will be true of his most recent utterances as well, and move on.

So today I'll address two of the favorite retorts that authoritarians seem to keep at the ready in case they encounter a libertarian. That libertarians are "selfish" (usually the opinionizer is a "liberal"), or that they are "childish" (generally this comes from the "conservative" side).

"Progressives", by claiming that libertarians are "selfish", are being selfish. Liberalism is self-centered. They serve their own selfish interests by demanding you give up some of your interests to serve theirs. Liberals worship the defective among us. That is fine as long as they spend their own time and effort catering to these individuals. Yet, they selfishly use the coercive force of government to make you serve that which they worship. They are so addicted to the "Mommy State" that they can't stand to see people who do not need to be mothered to death, and who do not need to be forced to "share". Of course, this category also spills over to "conservatives" from time to time on different issues (issues which usually shouldn't BE issues).

"Conservatives" often claim libertarians are "childish". They can't allow libertarians to prove that voluntary interactions are better than brute force. They threaten to take all their toys and go home when we don't wish to play their coercive "games". They would rather give up the areas that libertarians would be on their side of than to agree to leave people alone to make their own decisions and face their own consequences. They are so addicted to the "Strong Father State" that they can't stand seeing people not getting their spankings when they do something that offends their "morals" (cough-cough). They worship (often literally) the strict, authoritarian Punisher of Deeds, and use the blunt force of The State as the means to mete out retribution for your "offensive" acts. Yet, this category, too, often spills over into the "Progressive" cult where such things as "gun control" are concerned.

Me, I'm strong enough to leave people alone to live their own lives as they see fit; only meddling if I see someone initiating force, fraud, or theft. That isn't "selfish", that is the height of generosity. Nor is it "childish" since it is the core of being an adult living among adults.

*

Please help!

Seeking donations

I'm embarrassed to do this, but I am going to have to ask for donations. Not to be used for expensive, trivial things, but for living expenses. Plus the luxury of an internet connection and a phone if there is anything left over.

Others do it, so I guess it is accepted. It just feels dirty, somehow, for me to do so.

Our household income has just gone down by another $350 per month. And that's on top of the $300 per month we lost just a few months ago. That is a significant percentage of our total income. Really significant. In a month or so we will also lose our seasonal income of $150 per month until next spring. Needless to say, it's a critical situation.

I have mentioned my computer problems before. That's the least of my worries. My car broke down a few months ago, and resisted all my efforts to repair it. The car I was borrowing from my parents broke down last week. I do still have my bicycle and trailer (which I use to haul my 3-year-old daughter around town), so I'm not completely stranded, but considering that for most business I have to cross the state line and go 8 to 13 miles down the highway (and then through city traffic), a bike with a kid trailer isn't the best option. Plus, the only grocery store in this town displays a big "no guns allowed" sign, so I hate to give them my business.

This time I have nothing I am auctioning off in exchange for the money, nothing to offer in return, and I'm not simply asking for page views.

Paypal, Gpal, or any method you prefer is welcome. If you can do a recurring donation, that would be wonderful. Help if you can, but please don't put yourself in a bad spot if you can't afford to help me. Thanks.

Obama in Albuquerque: a stranger to reality

Obama in Albuquerque: a stranger to reality

Obama was in Albuquerque, telling lies and demonstrating how completely out of touch with reality he truly is. His worshipers didn't seem to notice, which reflects more poorly on them than on him. I generally ignore him, and was shocked by the gross ignorance his comments illustrated. I'll loan you my shovel before the fertilizer buries you.

First of all, he calls for a "long-term plan" for the economy; completely ignorant (?) of the fact that planned economies always fail. The farther away from the free market (completely unplanned, unregulated trade between individuals with no government oversight or red tape) we get, the worse our economy gets. And we are far from a free market now, and have been for the past century or so. The recent problems were not caused by too little government and too few "laws" but by too much of both. Anyone who tries to tell you different is lying to you. Want to fix the economy? Stop trying to plan it!

He compounded his lie by encouraging small businesses to take advantage of "breaks" the government allows. Small businesses don't need breaks, they need to be left alone. Their owners need to keep ALL the money they bring in- to be re-invested in the business, or spent by its rightful owner, to the benefit of society; not stolen by parasites in government to the detriment of human civilization.

After making a fool of himself by talking about one thing he has no understanding of (the economy), he moved along to another subject that is apparently just as mysterious to him: education. Yes, Obama, education is critical. But that is why your "solution"- helping "public schools"- is the opposite of what should be done. Education is much too important to let imbeciles and tyrants like yourself anywhere near children. If you can't bring yourself to call for closing the "public schools", releasing their prisoners (the children and tax slaves alike), and bulldozing those shameful indoctrination camps to the ground, at least sell off the buildings and let them find a more honorable use in the next life.

Now he's gone from Albuquerque, I suppose, so I will go back to ignoring him. At least Obama's verbal flatulence and its lingering stench do have one useful side-effect: it reminds me what is at the putrid core of statism. And it isn't pretty.

The myths of statism

The myths of statism

The news in Albuquerque has been strangely quiet the past few days. I suppose the appearance of "The Annointed One" has distracted his mindless worshipers, and his mindless opponents, enough that they have stopped committing their regularly scheduled aggression, theft, and fraud while they watch to learn how the Master does it.

In the meantime I'll offer some philosophical thoughts.

People have a powerful desire to believe myths- whether religious, political, or philosophical. I'm not talking about useful tales that teach a valuable lesson here, but harmful lies that form a false foundation for cultural beliefs. If it makes them feel better they follow it and refuse to accept the truth, any truth, that discredits their myth.

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

This is the foundation of "conservatism" and "liberalism/progressivism". It is why they reject voluntaryism of any sort without giving it any real consideration at all. It is why they invariably must fall back on the same tired old retorts: "How cute. Now grow up!" - "No government based on that has ever been successfully established anywhere in the world, ever!" - "Government is necessary to keep people from selfishly stomping on everyone who gets in their way." - or whatever other completely silly and empty insult or "argument" they can dredge up. All those objections have been tried before, though, and they are no more true now than they were years ago. (And soon I'll address the claims that libertarianism is "childish" and "selfish".)

There is a comfort in being "conservative" or "liberal" that those of us beyond that simplistic view don't have. It is the comfort found in large numbers. The comfort of the herd. Large numbers of mindless drones or bleating sheep. But we do have the comfort of being right in the face of seemingly overwhelming opposition. That is enough for me. I can do without the myths.

Government-sanctioned monkeys with guns?

Government-sanctioned monkeys with guns?

You may think I have been unnecessarily hard on the Albuquerque Police (and police in general) recently. Perhaps you assume I think it is impossible for a cop to do something good. You would be wrong.

Police may occasionally do the right thing, just as a blind monkey with a Tommygun, firing into a crowd, might accidentally shoot a bad guy. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to trust the monkey or give him the gun. And it is absolutely insane to give the monkey special authority or lightly excuse the monkey for the real harm his actions do.

We are all accountable and responsible for everything we do. A silly title or a badge doesn't lessen that responsibility, but intensifies it. LEOs must be held to a much higher standard of accountability than those of us who would actually be punished, severely, for making the same "mistakes" the average cop makes. At least until the "job" of "law enforcement" is relegated to the heap of civilization-endangering ideas from whence it came. Never forget the wrong they commit, and forgive only at your own peril. And never trust them.

ABQ captive dies

ABQ captive dies

The overcrowded Metro Detention Center in Albuquerque has had a 22-year-old female "inmate" die. While her death may have had nothing to do with her captivity, I'm sure her captivity didn't help her any.

She was being held captive on a "parole violation", and had been since the end of January. I would like to know what she did that was so heinous that it was necessary to kidnap her in the first place. If she was really a political prisoner (someone who had not attacked, stolen from, or defrauded anyone- as fully a third of the prisoners in the US are) then the Albuquerque Police Department and the administration of the overcrowded Metro Detention Center are murderers. If this is the case, will there be justice?

A request for action and an experiment- with new updates

In reference to my expensive, trivial, desired thing, I would like to propose an experiment.

I figured out I would need about 1,900,000 page views by the end of the month on my Examiner column to get enough money for my self-indulgent treat. How ever many more I can get will help and get me closer, especially if I can get more subscribers and daily visitors! Help me get as many page views as humanly possible.

So, what I'm asking is that you please go to my column, pick any particular article you want (or just use this one), and send it to as many people as possible. You can even tell them why I want the page views. Then ask them to spread the link around to as many people as they possibly can. And so on.

I'd like to see if I can set a (as far as I know) record for Examiner. And, if I manage to get enough page views to buy the item, even better!

I'll post the results here later in an update. Thank you in advance!

Update 1- Well, I got 208 page views the first day. Which is more than double my normal (recent) page views. If it will "more than double" again today and for subsequent days I could be on track.

Update 2- Still doing fairly well on page views. Please subscribe through the button on the Examiner page. Examiner claims to pay more depending on the number of subscribers, too.

Update 3- Well, thank you to all those who helped. It did put my page views back up to levels where they had been back before they started going down. They have dropped back to the low levels again now, though.

Altogether the push seems to have resulted in an extra $5 for me. And now with all my computer problems, and having no working vehicle for the past week (mine has been broken down for months and in the shop for the past month, and now my dad's pickup which I had been borrowing is also broken down), I'm getting very economically and emotionally depressed.

Highwaymen strike again

Highwaymen strike again

Albuquerque cops are bragging that they "arrested" seven suspected "drunken drivers" during one of their illegal checkpoint schemes. Notice, too, the ironic location of the illegal checkpoint: Constitution Avenue.

If a person is really drunk, and driving, there is no "suspected" involved. It is obvious. Such is not the case under the current police state's "laws".

Property rights under assault

Property rights under assault

Residents in Albuquerque’s North Valley are looking for justice after a vandalism and theft spree. The victims are demanding restitution, which is the foundation of real justice. One resident was quoted as saying he would have shot the vandals had he seen them. I would not blame him if he had, and in fact, think this is the proper response. Once again: justice. (The "authorities" would, of course, disagree.) Until the cost of violating the rights of the innocent is raised back up to its correct level there will be more incidents like this.

However, stopping these violations is not in the interest of The State. Justice is not on the map.

It all comes down to that one thing all governments despise and deny: property rights.

Here in my own little town far from Albuquerque, property rights are under a new assault from the local government. The town has just hired a new LEO for "code enforcement". That's collectivist-speak for "Violating your property rights on behalf of The Majority using the threat of force".

I understand that some people get offended when a neighbor has an unkempt lawn. Yet, what another person does with their own property, even to the point of destroying it, is no one else's business as long as no one else is being harmed. "Codes" are just a way of taking control of a person's property away from them and giving it to "the majority". It is wrong even if you like it and even if you can come up with reasonable-sounding justifications. I repudiate this violation of rights. Don't enforce the "Codes" against my neighbors on my behalf.