Nothing political to exploit

Sometimes when I point out how bad The State (externally-imposed government) is, someone will claim it is only a tool, like a gun, and could be used for good if only the right person (or political party) is wielding it. They will claim that since I don't think guns are inherently harmful I should apply the same to The State. Boy, do they ever get it wrong!

If guns existed only for the purpose of getting more guns there might be some similarity. Guns save more innocent lives than they take, and they don't turn good people bad just by being present. The same can never be honestly said about The State.

The State, even if it is used to "help" someone, is funded by theft and imposed by force. If I decide to help a hungry person, the right way to do so is to dip into my own pocket to pay for the food, or to ask for help from others. The wrong way to "help" is the path always taken by government: steal the food (or money to buy the food) from someone else. Two wrongs do not make a right, and you can't solve a problem by causing another problem. To say it another way, you can't fix harm by shifting the harm to another innocent person.

A person can not be a part of The State without being damaged and corrupted by that system. Politicians will always exploit their power to get more power, which is why the entire political business must be ended. If there is no system for voting to impose your will on others, there is nothing political to exploit. If there is no system in place that can be used to take money or property from some people to give it to other people (while keeping a cut for the bureaucracy), then no one could do so without being subject to the rules of justice.

There is almost nothing in the world that should be up for a vote. Let something be proposed and those who agree to it completely can go off to do it while leaving everyone else alone. How many people want to do it, or what percentage, should not even be a consideration. If, under any system, everyone is not given an easy, painless way to opt out, it is wrong.

Unexamined statism rampant in ABQ

Unexamined statism rampant in ABQ


The Albuquerque news is just a carnival of statism. "Problems" that wouldn't be problems in a free society. Most of these stories are the same old thing, over and over again. It's ridiculous that the statists refuse to open their eyes and see that their standard operating procedures are nothing but wheel-spinning absurdity.

What am I talking about? Well:

Albuquerque police arrested a woman for selling drugs to teens, and in an unrelated incident an Albuquerque man was arrested in El Paso for having marijuana in his gas tank.

Neither of these things would have been "news", or even likely happened, without the incredibly stupid and evil "War on (some) Drugs", and its complicit soulless and mindless enforcers. Don't like drugs? Then don't use them (including ibuprofen, nicotine, statins, alcohol, etc.)! Don't like other people using drugs? Then educate, ridicule, shun, preach... but don't criminalize. Criminalization has utterly failed to reduce drug abuse and is only useful for growing The State's enforcement power and the inevitable abuse of that power. Supporting prohibition is stupid- even more stupid than abusing drugs.

And there's more.

An Albuquerque woman was charged $177 for visiting the an online porn site, and then she found out the site apparently had her "Social Security" number and other "identity information" on file when she called to dispute the charges. The site did refund her money, so kudos for them.

Since the identity thief didn't charge "enough" on the porn site, "The Law" says it is unlikely to do anything about it. Funny how "identity theft" was not a problem until The State forced its numbers and other tracking information on us in order to "protect our identity". The State is nothing but a cancer pretending to be its own cure. It sees an imaginary "problem", forces its own "solutions" on everyone, and then points to the resultant real disasters as evidence it needs to do more.

Still want more?

Albuquerque restaurants passed their health inspections, and this made the news. Nowhere is it recognized that "health inspections" are not any government's job. Instead the restaurant owners simply accept this violation of their rights as "business as usual"; not that they have any choice. I would much rather let voluntary, competing inspection companies spring up to take care of the market for restaurant inspections. Government "standards" are always an oxymoronic joke anyway.

Statism is all around us, is always a bad thing, and is largely invisible to most people until it harms them directly. Yet, harm them it will at some point. Will that event wake them up to reality, or will they continue to think it's OK as long as it only hurts "those people"? There is no justification for The State.

*
Donate?

If you think you can't afford gifts...

It is said "There's no time like the present", and I would add that there is no present like time.

Give a gift of your time to those you want to spend time with and who would love to spend time with you... and do it now. It's better than anything you could ever buy them.

City's involvement not necessary

City's involvement not necessary

Hotel Clovis keeps turning up in the news. Is it destined to be an eyesore, a money pit, or a slum? Or will tax money be spent to demolish it? As long as government is involved, you can bet those are the only realistic outcomes.

I realize the city believes it owns Hotel Clovis, but no government “owns” anything it did not steal, or buy (and maintain) with money it stole. Also, government will make it impossible for owners to actually use and profit from their property so that they give up and walk away, handing “ownership” to the city. Which still qualifies as “theft” in my book. Of course, governments have euphemisms like “eminent domain” and “taxation” for these acts of theft, and refuse to accept responsibility for making a project unworkable.

I suspect the above-mentioned red tape, taxation, and regulations cause most vacancies to begin with, since you can adjust your overhead and business model except where government is concerned. These same hurdles also prevent vacant buildings from being put to good use. Unless you are rich or politically connected you have little chance of making it through the regulatory and extortion gauntlet of “fees” and “permits” that starting an ambitious project requires. You never have the opportunity to see how the market would respond to your idea.

So people turn to uses that completely depend on government’s support.

I have no problem with “low-income housing.” Poor people need a place to live, too. What I do have a problem with are entrepreneurs who go seeking government handouts for their projects; which when completed will only survive through more government handouts. This is not sustainable development, but a planned failure. It ties up your money that you could have better spent. Profitable use that doesn’t require locally or federally stolen money to be infused would be a much wiser use of any building than planning for a subsidized project.

I also have a problem when some government entity believes it “needs” to get involved. It is not the government’s money to dole out. Not for the renovations, nor for the eventual rent payments. All government can do to help is step aside.

A good suggestion I heard was to let some film production company blow up the building for a movie. Think of all the attention and money that would bring in.

I know some people would hate to see the building destroyed, no matter how it is done. So would I. But, if it is to be destroyed due to government interference, I would rather see it be done without costing taxpayers, and perhaps bringing in some business to the locals at the same time.

I’m available for a bit part in the film, as long as I don’t have to portray a bad guy.

The Truth Exposed

The kidnapping of Julian Assange proves that what "conservative" conspiracy theorists have railed about for years is a done deal. There is already a "One-World Government". (And "patriotic conservatives" have been its biggest supporters by propping up one of its tentacles.) How long has that been the case? For a long time.

Just as the different agencies and branches of the federal government may fight amongst themselves, yet have the same ultimate belief that what they work together toward is legitimate, so it is with all the "separate" nations' governments. Step on the toes of one, and they all stick together to protect the interests of The State as a unified force.

This also illustrates (for liberty-minded folk or anyone else who is honest) the illegitimacy of "national borders"- why bother with them when the only "need" for them is to divvy up the spoils of politics among the various gangs of governmental thieves? "National borders" serve the interests of The State as separate cages serve the interest of the dog pound.

This whole Wikileaks situation has completely ripped away the thin veil that was marginally hiding the monster at the controls. The State has exposed itself for exactly what it is. Those who still support it are siding with death, tyranny, and inexcusable evil. Don't be a brainwashed "useful idiot". Stop supporting or defending The State at any level.

Technical question

If anyone has a clue how to (if possible) to set up a subdomain as a page on my KentForLiberty website, let me know.

I gave this blog a custom subdomain (blog.kentforliberty.com) and I would like to have this blog as a page on my website, but I am confuzzled by the technicalities and can't even figure out if such a thing is possible.

If I don't know what you are talking about if you try to explain it, have patience, please!

Digging out the infection

This may hurt, but truth often does, just like digging the infection out of a wound isn't a pleasant experience. This particular infection is frequently found on blogs and other writings from people who otherwise support liberty- except where this blindspot is encountered.

I get so tired of military worship from people who pretend to be on the side of liberty and freedom. You can't have it that way if you are honest, because it just doesn't work that way, no matter what you wish.

I realize a lot of people have "invested" their lives with the military, and have family members- parents, siblings, offspring, and ancestors going back for generations- who have done the same. They want to believe that they have been a part of "something bigger than themselves" [sic] and a FORCE for good. They want to believe in spite of reality. What a waste.

You have all been working against everything America was supposed to be. You have been destroying liberty while being told you are preserving it. You have been the willing (or enslaved, in the case of the conscripted) tool of tyrants and psychopaths.

I do not "support the troops" except in that I want them all to come home NOW and stop bringing American Empire to other shores- this alone will stop the dying. I do not value the goals of the US police State. I do not support efforts to "democratize" other cultures. Nor do I want these troops joining with "law enforcement" to bring the "blessings of tyranny" to America once they lose their overseas jobs. No occupying troops here or abroad!

Some claim to join the military as a way to "help" people. Seriously? If you really want to be on a disaster relief crew, traveling to the scene of the latest natural or man-made disaster, then being in the death squad known as the military isn't the right way to go about it. Join a better group, form your own, or go it alone. Think you'll need armed back-up while you are there? I agree. Provide your own or re-think the situation you are getting yourself into.

The military, even in the best circumstances is not helping liberty, but killing it. Don't join for ANY reason.

Abandoned briefcase triggers overreaction in ABQ

Abandoned briefcase triggers overreaction in ABQ

America is populated by cowards. Of course, this is by design, since this way agents of The State can be seen by the fear-numbed population as "doing something" heroic.

Some of those cowards, however, deserve to live in fear. The government-sanctioned thieves at the Albuquerque IRS building went into panic mode Friday afternoon over an abandoned briefcase. Maybe the Albuquerque Police Department left it there. If the IRS employees are doing nothing wrong, why do they believe people are out to harm them? Perhaps some of them do still possess a conscience. Somewhere.

It was all a false alarm. The briefcase contained nothing but air. If the briefcase had turned out to contain one of those "suitcase nukes" we are assured are everywhere, would cowering in place have actually saved the school children that were held captive by the public schools in the vicinity?

The State would be funny if it didn't kill so many people.

*
Donate?

Pathetic!

If you hate or fear what Wikileaks is doing, you are pathetic.

If you value security (or the illusion of security, anyway) over liberty, you are pathetic.

If you excuse mass murder simply because it is done by "your" government (or more specifically by its "troops"/hired killers) in some other country, you are pathetic.

If you have anything other than revulsion for those evil perverts of the TSA, you are pathetic.

If you support the murderers and cretins who carry out the War on Drugs, you are pathetic.

If you still believe there are "good cops" you are delusional and are hiding your head in the sand.

If you think your religion is more important than liberty, you are pitiable.

If you don't see that any border that keeps "them" out can also be used to trap "us" here, you are pathetic.

If you think "gun control" is about anything other than removing people's ability to resist harm from bad guys, and giving more power to The State, you are pathetic.

If you won't admit that taxation, any taxation, is theft, you are pathetic.

If you trust a bunch of amoral, unethical, power-mad politicians and bureaucrats to run your life and the lives of others more than you trust yourself, you are pathetic.

If you expect me (or anyone else) to be numbered, scanned, groped, tracked, spied on, regulated, controlled, licensed, censored, or otherwise "governed", you are my enemy.

For that matter, if you support The State and don't see it as the cancer it really is, you are beyond pathetic.

I may not tell you to your face because if this describes you I doubt you'd have the ability to comprehend any of it, and would only try (pathetically) to insult me in some way. I've seen it happen over and over again.

Of course I'm an anarchist- because I have principles and ethics. There is no good to come from The State nor from supporting or respecting it. Time's Up!

Government incompetence brings more problems

Government incompetence brings more problems


More water mains have broken in Albuquerque. I know, this is nothing new. I love the way the KRQE story starts out with a sense of resignation. It's not just ABQ. This is happening in cities everywhere. If it isn't water mains, it is bridges.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Yes, the infrastructure in America is crumbling. Because government has been "in control" of it for far too long. Government doesn't do anything well. Not anything which is necessary, anyway. It steals, kills, molests, trespasses, and defrauds exceptionally well, but this isn't a good thing and benefits no one but goverment employees.

The infrastructure needs to be owned by those with an economic interest in keeping it operational and safe. Government's only contribution would be in staying out of the way. If something needs repairs, they could be done without time-wasting permits and red tape. If it fails, there would be consequences. And there needs to be competition for supplying the needs rather than a government-imposed monopoly. There would still be problems, I am sure. However, this way there would be individuals responsible and accountable. Government is not the solution to anything.
*

If you know a liberty lover (or a potential one) who needs a gift, please consider sending them one of my books. I have a book for almost any person. And your purchase would be about the best gift you could give me. Unless you want to spend more, of course. ;)

Enemy inside the gates

Enemy inside the gates


A gated community in Albuquerque needs better gates for keeping out the riff-raff. And its residents (and ethical people everywhere) probably need to shun at least one member of that riff-raff who lives among them. Too bad the bad guy's identity is withheld.

A busy-body "neighbor", too cowardly to stick a gun in his neighbor's face personally, called in the government to do his dirty work for him when he got upset over the neighbor's porch. Now government has violated the property rights of many of the individuals in the targeted community and is salivating over the money that will flow in from the 96 "violations" the government trespassers found. (Government assumes people will pay rather than sit in jail.)

As always, the nannies claim it is for "their own safety" that this extortion racket is established. "What it there is a fire and it spreads quickly because the houses are too close together?" Yeah, "what if"?

If you don't want a neighbor's porch to be built "too close" to your house, for fire safety or any other reason, keep your own house farther from your property line. Then if your neighbor builds right up to the property line you are still in no danger. You have no authority to control where on his property your neighbor builds. And neither does any government.

As I have written before, "codes" are nothing more or less than a violation of property rights. They have no place in a free society.

Is The State worth it?

Is The State worth it?

What is the goal of statism? The two excuses for having a State I've heard most often, even by people who don't think of themselves as statists while still promoting the notion that "some government is necessary", are to protect the rights of people and to keep people safe.

Is that really the goal of The State or a dishonest justification covering the true goal? Well, since I am not a statist I can only look at the actions and results. Since I see very few actions by The State that would seem to be working toward this goal, and a bunch of actions that seem to be actively fighting against the stated goal, I would have to say the stated goal is not the true goal. Let's pretend for a moment that the stated goal is the real goal, however.

Are those goals "good" or "bad"? Do they help or harm?

Is it good to protect the rights of people? Of course this requires an understanding of what rights are and what they are not. First of all, do rights exist? If not, that means no one has a right to do anything, not even to control the lives of others, so there is no right to Rule.

If, on the other hand, rights do exist, a right can not violate the equal and identical rights of others. The basic right is the right to say "no". So, no one has a right to do things to someone else that would violate their self-ownership, self determination, and property rights. Rights can not impose an obligation on others beyond the obligation to not violate rights. Protecting your own rights and the rights of other people would be a good thing to do.

Does The State's existence advance this goal?

No, it fails to even advance toward this goal a tiny bit. The State has become the only credible threat to the rights of people. My neighbor won't steal from me (without repercussions, anyway), nor will he attack me for disobeying his edicts about how I choose to live as long as I am not infringing on his life or property. If he tries to do so, The State would protect him from my defensive actions more than it would protect my right to defend myself from his depredations. Fail number one.

Moving along to the second excuse. Would "keeping people safe" be a good thing? Maybe. Safety is in the eye of the beholder. True safety can never exist, nor would it be a completely good thing with no drawbacks if it seemed to. Life is dangerous. There is a thin line between safety and meddling. You might be safer to stay in bed and eat only pureed food while you breathe filtered and sterilized air, although such safety would be dangerous in its own way. No sane person would choose that "life" for himself (although he would have the absolute right to do so), and only an evil person would dictate that "life" for others.

Pretending for a moment that you could create a "safe" situation with no downsides, then it might be OK to do so as long as you didn't force it on those who don't consent.

Does The State "keep us safe"?

It partially depends on who "us" is. If you are talking about people who choose to steal, rape, murder, kidnap, and boss people around, then the answer is "yes"- as long as those people join the ranks of government. The State keeps them pretty safe from the consequences of their actions. If, on the other hand, you are talking about ordinary people who are simply trying to go about their lives, The State fails to keep them safe. It may protect them from some freelance thieves, but only by the trade-off of sending its own officially-sanctioned thieves instead. This is not a net gain.

The same applies for all other dangers. On the rare occasions that a freelance aggressor is stopped by The State, he is replaced with one or more sent directly from The State- aggressors who have legal immunity for the harm they cause. If you fight back against agents or bureaucrats of The State you will face an escalation of force on a scale unavailable to the freelance thugs The State claims to be protecting you from.

The actions of The State also directly threaten you by creating and encouraging enemies around the globe. Enemies that will want to harm you and me simply because they don't realize that The State is not me, I am causing them no harm and have no wish to do so, and I do not support the aggressive acts that The State claims are done on my behalf.

The bureaucratic "safety measures", such as "gun control", drug "laws", traffic "laws", airport "security", food and drug standards (and testing), all have hidden costs, which if taken into account honestly would diminish any "benefit" to those burdensome regulations to the point that they would be seen to create no net gain in safety. Fail, fail, fail.

The State does not "keep us safe".

My conclusion is that since The State fails in its stated goals it is obsolete and not worth its cost to civilization.

Originally published here

The Julian Assange Welcome Pledge

From nostate.com and Knappster:

I, Kent McManigal, hereby pledge that if Julian Assange should call upon me in need of a place to stay, I will provide it to him with no questions asked, indefinitely, and with the highest degree of security and confidentiality I can provide. I’m easy to get a hold of.

Now it’s your turn. Simply replace your name with mine and publish. Link here if you wish, but publish.

No room for double standards

No room for double standards


(I had to almost fight to get this one published mostly intact. Here's the original version.)

The recent tragedy in which a Clovis police officer seems to have run a stop sign and caused an accident that killed a woman illustrates the difference between the way statists and libertarians see things.

Make no mistake: I don't believe for an instant the officer wanted to cause the accident. (Hence the word "accident".) I firmly believe he would do absolutely anything to be able to rewind time and avoid killing the woman were such a thing possible.

However, what is done is done and can never be undone. Accidents are a part of life and will continue to happen no matter what "laws" are passed or how careful you try to be. How you respond to an accident once it occurs shows what kind of person you are.

All I expect in a situation such as this is that the officer be treated exactly the same as any other person involved in the same circumstance. No double standards.

If the officer is to be given the benefit of the doubt, which I think he should be, I expect the same the next time a "commoner" is involved in a traffic accident that kills a police officer.

I expect the investigation to take a long time to conclude, perhaps allow the driver's family or friends to participate in the investigation of the accident, as Clovis police are investigating this case.

Employees of the state are not an elite class. They should not receive any special treatment.

Army of pots calling a mustard seed 'black'

Army of pots calling a mustard seed 'black'

The Albuquerque news laments that a serial property crimes offender has been arrested for the 127th time. Yet, there is a worse property crimes offender at large- one who violates the property rights of everyone who is forced to interact with one of its representatives- one who makes this freelance parasite look like an amateur by comparison.

The State, what most people are speaking of when they use the word "government", has no rivals where property rights violations are concerned. Either your property is held for ransom, or you are not allowed to use your property as you see fit, or your property is stolen outright by this offender. And it points the finger at this minor player in its own game to distract from the truth. People should stop being fooled.

People should also understand that The State, by its "laws", protects all bad guys, including property rights violators, from facing the realistic consequences of their actions. Consequences that would be sure and swift in a free society.
*
Donate?

Examiner.com- some advice

I long ago gave up on trying to communicate directly to the folks at Examiner.com.  At best, I would get some patronizing dismissal "showing" me why I was wrong and they were right.  Often I just got no response at all.  So I'm going to gamble that they do Google searches to see what people are saying about Examiner.com and will run across this.

First of all, there is an optimal amount of advertising.  You left that in the dust long ago.  My readers have been complaining for months about Examiner having so many ads that they have trouble getting to read the content.  This drives away readers.  But, now your ads are even making it hard for me to post columns.  It's one thing to clog the site with ads, but it's insanity to clog the publishing tool with so many ads and pop-ups that writers can't post easily.  Why have ads on the publishing tool at all? 

I have tried to post a column twice today, only to have the site freeze up due to the flood of ads.  Added to the fact that you got rid of the "auto-save" feature, this means I have to go back and re-write the whole thing (fortunately I have a saved copy), and add all the links back in again.  This is extremely frustrating.

Why did you get rid of useful features while clogging the site with garbage?  You got rid of the auto-save, as I mentioned before, and you got rid of the spell check.  My keyboard tends to skip "h" a lot.  This means I have to copy and paste my article somewhere else to try to catch the skipped letters.  PUT THE SPELL CHECK BACK!

Then there is the money.  You keep cutting back on the pay per page view.  Yes, you added a dollar per published column "up to 5 per week" (as long as I include the word "Albuquerque" in the column somewhere), but the per view pay keeps dwindling.  It evaporates.  It makes it pointless to strive for good content rather than to just post some "Blah blah Albuquerque blah" to get the dollar.  Yet, for my own self-respect I refuse to do that.  I'd rather just walk away from your sandbox and let you use it as your personal kitty box if that's what you want.

It is really getting to the point that the problems are not worth the pittance you pay.  I also feel that the pay situation on your part is dishonest.  Sure you hedge your bets by saying:

...your pay is based on a rating that considers a number of factors, including advertising revenue and the quality of your audience. This includes things like frequency of publishing, subscriptions, page view traffic and session length. Pay may fluctuate depending on any of these and other factors. Examiner.com makes no guarantees as to minimum payment.

Weasel words?  Affirmative!

I am tired of the nonsense.

Flag not 'vandalized', simply upside down

A flag at an Albuquerque McDonald's was rehung "upside down" by persons unknown. It is being called "vandalism" by the wronged party.

Flag not 'vandalized', simply upside down


Trespassing was obviously committed. That was wrong. But "vandalism"? No.

Vandalism involves damaging property. Nothing was damaged in this case except a false "patriotism" that revolves around the worship of the US federal flag.

An upside down flag is a sign of emergency or severe distress. America is definitely in an emergency situation and denial of that fact won't make it go away. It isn't harmful or disrespectful to hang the federal flag upside down, and it certainly doesn't damage the flag.

People would be wise to educate themselves before they start pounding their chests and bellowing about some trivial act "disgracing our country". If you want to see who is truly a disgrace to America, look at the actions of the federal government, not flag rearrangers.

Free parking? At what cost?

Free parking?  At what cost?

There ain't no such thing as a free (parking) space. The city of Albuquerque has "graciously" made parking free in some parts of the city. While it may seem nice, it is a trick.

The city is only doing this because the politicians believe they can get more money from you in the long run if you feel good about the free parking and buy things they can tax.

If the city really owns the streets (a debate I've covered before), then they would have the authority to charge for parking along those streets. However, the city never has any legitimate authority to tax your purchases and force the stores to be their "Sheriff of Nottingham" for them.

Don't be fooled, and adjust your behavior accordingly.
*
Donate?

APD's 'tactical plan' for the holidays

APD's 'tactical plan' for the holidays


The Albuquerque Police Department is using a variety of scams to catch thieves this holiday season. This is probably one of the least offensive things the APD does with its time, other than eating donuts.

Yet, the reliance on cops causes crime. It is your duty to protect your own life and property. You can not delegate that responsibility to anyone else, no matter who they are, what they promise, or what they threaten you with if you refuse.

I am reminded of the "abandoned backpack" scam the APD was pulling recently. A scam that could have easily netted innocent people who sensibly didn't trust cops to return lost items to the rightful owners. The scams the cops are pulling this time do seem less likely to entrap innocents.

However, never forget that they are paying for this "tactical plan" with stolen money that could be put to better defensive uses by individuals- had they been allowed to keep it. It is not "better" for The State and its agents to be stealing your money to "protect" you from freelance thieves. This substitution sleight-of-hand gains you nothing. Socialism always fails, no matter what you call it or how you dress it up.
*
Donate?

A tale of two scam artists

A tale of two scam artists

There is a scam artist at work in Albuquerque who is targeting small businesses; talking people out of money for fake advertising for nonexistent events.

Yet, there is a much more serious scam artist targeting those same small businesses, and the larger ones as well, in addition to every resident. And this scam doesn't rely on smooth talk, but on the threat of violence to those who don't fork it over. The police will never look for this particular scam artist, since he collects the money that they get to take home.

The freelance scam artist is being sought, though. The State just doesn't like the competition.
*
Donate?

Trailer park to kids: 'Go play in the ditch."

Trailer park to kids: 'Go play in the ditch."


Property rights collide in Albuquerque again. A dad is upset that the trailer park manager suggests that resident kids cross a street and play beside a ditch rather than on the trailer park's streets or around other people's trailers.

I can see both sides. If kids are trespassing on the other resident's properties, or blocking traffic by playing in the streets, I can see that the other residents would get upset and demand that the manager "do something". On the other hand, to suggest that the kids cross a busier street to play in a ditch is just absurd. I wonder if he got permission from the ditch-property owner before making that suggestion.

The trailer park owner has a right to restrict use of the property that is not rented to a specific individual, and has an obligation to defend the property rights of those who rent from him. The renters have a right to defend their own rented property from trespassers of any age. Not every right you possess should necessarily be exercised in every situation. Probably this wouldn't have become an issue had the kids respected property rights to begin with, so the parents should emphasize that lesson, too. Of course, that means teaching the parents about property rights first.

I suggest a solution: Let the parents of the kids make an agreement among themselves as to letting the kids play in their respective yards and any other yards that might be offered for the purpose. Maybe there are some adjacent yards that could be used, with the owners' permission, for team sports. Then try to get the kids to agree to stay off other property and off the streets as much as possible, and inform them of the consequences if they don't.
*
Donate?

Libertarianism true love of freedom

Libertarianism true love of freedom

(My first column in the Clovis News Journal)

How does a kid grow up in a deeply conservative background, and become libertarian? Probably by taking those teachings to heart and realizing there can be no double standards without compromising the principles he was taught.

By internalizing the lesson that if someone is doing something you believe they shouldn't be doing- unless they are attacking, stealing, defrauding, or possibly trespassing- you have no right to do more than point out that you think they are doing wrong, ask them to reconsider their actions, and then let them make their own mistakes. You can't fix a minor wrong by committing a major wrong.

By realizing that there is no one else to blame when you choose to do the wrong thing and it goes badly.

By coming to the knowledge that if it is wrong to attack, kidnap, steal, and murder, it changes nothing if the acts are committed by people who work for The State and who call the acts "airport security", "arrest", "taxation", and "war".

By realizing you can't protect individual rights and property rights, the only legitimate justifications for any government, by violating those same rights in any way.

I was libertarian, with conservative tendencies, long before I knew what the word "libertarian" meant. I was called an "individualist". Once I began to really consider my beliefs, I began to eliminate the "conservative" inconsistencies that I had held on to. Like dominoes, they fell and toppled others as they went. Down went the racism; the nationalism; the hunger for punitive, false justice. Down went the support for The War on Drugs. I'm not saying that every non-libertarian has these same flaws, but these were mine. Other people have their own.

I came to see that you can't love liberty if you allow these things to persist in your life. Liberty is not a buffet where you can pick the parts you like for yourself, but toss away the rest to deny others their choice. That was a hard thing to learn.

So, when a jail inmate is said to be accidentally released from the county jail (or maybe not), or when the military wants to buzz regional private property, I try to dig below the emotion and rhetoric to get to the foundation. Such as, why was the shoplifter in jail rather than working to pay restitution? And, why does the military need even more land over which to train for a military occupation (or two, or ...?) which should never have begun? See, getting to the root clears up a lot of things.

*
Donate?

Be thankful and back it with action!

(This is my latest State Line Tribune column)

That time of the year is upon us where we are reminded to be thankful for the good things in our lives. Along with those things we normally think of, like family, friends, and health, do you think of the liberty that permits you to more fully enjoy those meaningful things?

Liberty is simply the freedom to exercise your rights. Without that freedom your rights would be meaningless. The State, at all levels, seeks to destroy your liberty, but it can not do so without your help, or at least without you doing it a favor by excusing or turning a blind eye toward its abuses. The only credible threat to liberty for the past couple hundred years has been, and still is, externally-imposed government- The State- no matter what phantom menace The State tries to promote for its own purposes and as a distraction.

It is hard, but not impossible, to fully enjoy family and friends, and to hold onto good health, when liberty is violated beyond a certain level. You'll probably never know where that line lies until it has been crossed. Don't permit even one more infringement on liberty for any reason or under any excuse. No justification is "good enough".

Thankfulness without action is empty. If you are truly thankful for liberty do something to prove it and don't assist its enemies, wherever they may dwell.

So be thankful for the liberty you have, grab onto even more, and be vigilant against its enemies so that next year at this special time you will still have liberty, and maybe even more liberty, to be thankful for.
*

Happy Communism-Repudiation Day!  Enjoy your harvest feast!

*
Donate?

Opt-out for decency and liberty

Opt-out for decency and liberty


The Albuquerque Sunport is trying to hint that National Opt-Out Day will be a failure. Prove the Sunport managers, and their filthy co-conspirators of the Terrorist Support Agency (TSA), wrong. Better yet, boycott flying until security theater is scrapped and ONLY real security, armed passengers and crew, becomes the norm. Of course, this means kicking The State out of the airports completely, which sooner or later will be done anyway.

The Sunport claims to have "contingency plans" to deal with people standing up against tyranny. Well, I personally hope their "contingency plans" turn out to be as successful as a decision to use a six-foot step ladder to reach the moon after the only rocket on earth rusts away and is forgotten, due to "public education".

The TSA, and the very idea of security, is completely evil and wrong. They need to fail and be crushed, along with any business which supports them. Use the freedom you have left to choose to boycott flying. Bankrupt the airlines. Put the airports out of business. Use your right of association and shun anyone who has anything to do with the TSA or "airport security".

It is time to stand up. Will you be counted with the sniveling collectivists, or will you make the mature, self-responsible choice and defend this clearly visible line in the sand? Your liberty and the very lives of your kids is at stake. Don't blow it this time; you may never get another chance in your lifetime if you comply now.
*
Donate?

When is a gift not a gift?

When is a gift not a gift?
 
How can it be a gift if your money is stolen to pay for it, and a molester (or his familiar) gives it to you after violating you? Yet, this is just a part of what the state police and the Albuquerque badge-vermin are doing during their new checkpoint [sic] blitzkrieg.


The gift bags were actually handed out by those harpies of "Mothers" Morons Against Drunk Driving. (They are not just against "drunk driving" but any driving freedom at all, and against all alcohol consumption, or they wouldn't condone and advocate these "checkpoints" and wouldn't have advocated lowering the blood-alcohol levels to the point of meaninglessness.) The MADD cows may have handed out the bags, but DOT "bought" the bags with money taken from you.

Don't believe the lie: these "checkpoints" are not about "drunk driving" at all, and if alcohol (and every other intoxicant or relaxant) were to vanish overnight, The State would still find some bogus excuse to violate your right to travel without being robbed and molested. This is about asserting control over your life; nothing else.

These "gift" bags make me wonder- What's next? Wine and roses after a TSA "security" rape?


*
Donate?

TSA scanners: helping kill the Empire with idiocy and evil

TSA scanners: helping kill the Empire with idiocy and evil

It seems as though the TSA may just be a tipping point in bringing tyranny to the attention of some of the less-aware among us. Whether that awareness will last more than a week or two, or bring any return to sanity is anyone's guess.

The TSA's new invasive and dangerous scanners have become widely known as "porno-scanners" which indicates some people are waking up (although I still prefer my own terms of "pedophile-o-vision" and "molest-o-vision" since "porn" is consensual, but molestation isn't). And, if you choose to "opt out" of being photographed naked (a choice that may be denied to you soon), and not in a flattering pose to be sent to your sexting friends, you will be subject to a groping that would be illegal in any other non-consensual situation. Make no mistake, there is nothing consensual about the TSA's procedures.

Of course, some people claim that they "must" fly due to their job or situation. That's ridiculous. Would you claim you "must" allow yourself to be raped "for your job" in any other circumstance? If you value yourself and your family so little that you'll not stand up for yourself I pity you.

I suggest you Boycott Flying, and proclaim "We Won't Fly!". If you aren't willing to make a real stand, at least muck up the plans of those in TSA "authority" by participating in Opt Out Day. Or if that isn't your style and you had no plans to be flying anytime soon anyway, let a major business know why you can't take your children to their theme parks anymore, if that means subjecting them to the hands and eyes of the federal perverts, by writing a letter to just one targeted company.

I don't know, nor do I care, if Albuquerque's airport has the molest-o-vision machines. If not now; soon. (If you do know, feel free to leave a comment with the information in case someone does care.) Either way, I WILL NOT FLY until the idiots in government (redundancy alert) stop meddling with air transportation so that REAL security and safety can be implemented by everyone being able to carry the gun of their choice on board with no obstacles at all, other than (perhaps) type of ammo.  Anything less is "security theater".

*
Donate?

Swastika branding not a good idea

Swastika branding not a good idea

Aggression is aggression, and whether it fits The State's definition of "hate" or not is irrelevant.

The Albuquerque news brings word of three "men" in Farmington who are charged with a "hate crime" for burning a swastika into the flesh of a supposedly "mentally disabled" victim.

It wouldn't make any difference if they had branded him with a happy face rather than with the pattern commonly known as a "swastika". That symbol has a very long history before the German "progressives" known as Nazis adopted it as their own. Nazis are a temporary cancer on the history of the world and you shouldn't let them define anything for the rest of us. The swastika is a sacred symbol to many Native Americans and others around the globe. If you automatically despise that symbol, you should also automatically hate the US flag since it has been adopted by the world's largest terrorist group and is flown over all occupied territories world-wide.

Anyone with any decency isn't going to brand another human being with anything, especially if there is any question as to whether the person understands the implications. If he wants to be branded, let him do it himself or ask to have it done. In that case, you'd better have a lot of witnesses around who can see for themselves that the man actually, really wants the brand and understands the pain it will cause, and the social implications of having it burned into his flesh for all to see from now on. If there is any question as to the person's ability to consent, then you had better be doubly sure before you agree to perform the procedure.

In any case, I sense coercion and I don't care whether "hatred" (as defined by The State) was a part of it or not. It seems obvious to me that hatred is at the core of all acts of coercion, whether committed by The State or by freelance individuals. Even if I am wrong there, hatred doesn't make any harm worse, nor would doing it in "love" make it any better.

The fact that the branders also shaved the symbol into the back of his hair and used a marker to write on his body shows me that their intent was to make the man an object of ridicule. This shows me that they are acting out of evil intent. But it is the reality of their actions, not their intentions, that form the basis of the harm they committed.  They owe restitution on a grand scale.
*
Donate?

The tragedy of pumpkin vigilantism

The tragedy of pumpkin vigilantism

OK, so there is really no tragedy here. Unless you are the humiliated and sore burglar in question.

An Albuquerque man used an "assault pumpkin" to defeat a burglar. He is being called a "vigilante" and the LEOs (that perpetual burglar support crew) are busy saying people should just "give 'em what they want" rather than standing up for yourself when robbed. These cops say you should never take "the law" into your own hands. I agree in a way since "the law" is nothing but putrid fecal matter and it is shameful to be associated with it in any way, but that's the fault of "the law", not the fault of those who refuse to be victimized.

I do have one small suggestion for the "Punkin Chunker": He should probably offer to pay for the pumpkin he used, since he apparently trespassed and then took and used the pumpkin without permission. If it had been my pumpkin, however, I'd refuse payment; feeling the result was well worth the loss.


*
Donate?

Robber-officer suicide

Robber-officer suicide

Albuquerque's most recent bank robber killed himself when it became obvious he was caught. It would have been slightly more satisfying had an armed bank customer or employee fired the fatal shot. However, justice sometimes comes from strange directions.

The revelation that the dead robber had been working for The State as a prison guard at Los Lunas until his death shouldn't surprise anyone who recognizes the flawed personality traits that lead a person to seek unlimited power and control over others, a sense of entitlement, and a lack of empathy or ethics that are essential in either "career choice".

There's also a disturbing admission from the cops who surrounded the robber: "According to police, the suspect was driving out of control which justified the shooting of the truck's tires." Because we all know the solution to out-of-control driving is to have a sudden, violent blow-out. Right? Well, according to "cop-think" it is.
 
(I can't help but wonder, since the robber turned out to be an "Only One", what would have been the penalty for shooting him during his robbery?)

*
Donate?

New Writing Gig!

I just got a new writing gig with the Clovis News Journal (and the Portales News-Tribune), which are both Freedom Communications papers. 

Once a week, to be published in both papers simultaneously each Friday, and it doesn't pay much at all, but it still pays better than Examiner (so guess which will get priority).  They also want more length than Examiner does, and more depth.  Plus I still get paid even if I don't specifically mention the names of the towns.

I'm not allowed to post the content anywhere else for 30 days, but I will be posting the link to the column here as soon as it is online.

The Portales News-Tribune has been using some of my material recently, anyway.  This just makes it official.

Look for the first column next Friday.

Drive-up robber service: I'm lovin' it?

Drive-up robber service: I'm lovin' it?

A disgusting parasite robbed an Albuquerque McDonald's drive up window Sunday evening. Follow the link and look at the guy. It's obvious he is scared senseless. As well he should be. (In addition to being dumb as dirt to let the camera get such a clear look at his face.) Someone out there knows him, and can make sure he'll never be able to do such a thing again and that the stolen property is returned to the rightful owner.

Speaking of justice- he is lucky there were no self-owning, responsible customers or staff present during his cowardly act of freelance taxation. Of course, since he robbed the drive up window, I suppose it would have been hard for customers inside to have seen what was going on. That's if anyone was even paying attention to their surroundings.

I can't help but think that anyone who complies with demands of a robber at a drive up window might be too compliant for their own good. Where's a big vat of extremely hot oil when you need one?
*
Donate?

Questions arise in detective's crash

Questions arise in detective's crash


An Albuquerque police detective crashed his unmarked, stealth copmobile into a stop sign and through a bush before it came to rest near a home's garage. It is only fitting that this happened on Halloween weekend since he claims the cause was a phantom car that caused him to swerve before it disappeared. OK, so he claims the car was real and that it drove away, but there seems to be no sign of this car except in his report.

The LEOs who investigated the crash said they saw no signs that the detective had been drinking, but we all know cops see what they've been trained to see. And one thing they are definitely not trained to see (or perhaps, trained to not see) is another cop doing something wrong.

It seems suspicious to me that the news took over a week to surface. What does APD have to hide? That's not the only oddity, either. The wreck happened at 6AM, but the investigation seeks to discover "what actually took place that evening". I guess the mysterious Halloween spirit is real, and haunting the Albuquerque Police Department. Boo!

*
Donate?

Control-freaks to 'discuss' the future of the internet

Control-freaks to 'discuss' the future of the internet

The future of the internet will be debated, and no doubt endangered, on November 16 in Albuquerque at a public hearing with Federal (Prevention of Free) Communications Commissioner, Michael Copps.

Rest assured, as if you had any doubt, that when anyone in government discusses "the future" of the internet or anything else, they are not speaking of leaving it alone to thrive or wither on its own. They are talking about taking control so that they can meddle or ration the resource in whatever way they feel is best for "the common good". And planning on making you pay for the privilege of having your liberty violated. This is always bad for for individuals.

It is also illegal according to the First Amendment, as if that would ever stop them. You are the enforcement clause of your rights. Don't look to a piece of old, faded paper to do your job for you.
*
Donate?

Results of elections

Results of elections

With every election I have ever heard of, the results are always the same: Liberty loses and The State wins. If you are even the slightest bit aware, you already know that will happen since the system is rigged.

I have zero faith that the "Tea Party-backed" politicians who won their elections will do anything but increase the breadth and depth of government. They may focus their efforts in different areas than the Democrats have been- I expect more religious justifications for violating liberties of Americans, more "patriotic" justifications for the cult of border-worship and the related demonization of hispanic immigrants in particular, and a mix of the two excuses for the endless parade of US-sponsored terrorism Orwellishly called "The War on Terror". All, historically proven Big Government favorites.

Believe it or not, this never-changing course makes me smile to myself. It isn't as hopeless as you might think if you were counting on liberty to be saved by an election (which is a ridiculous notion). The reason is that these election results are only the "official, government sanctioned results". The reality is that The State, with the help of its supporters, is killing itself bit by bit with each election. It loses more true-believers every day, and I don't think they are being replaced as fast as they are leaving. Even I used to vote.

I believe voting for a candidate is wrong, but that running for office, if you are a hard-core libertarian or anarchist, is a very good thing. I know, it sounds contradictory. But it isn't.

First of all, hard-core libertarians and anarchists aren't going to vote. Not for you or for anyone else. But, lots of very good, "almost there" folk will. And it is better to give those people a real alternative rather than allowing them to waste their vote on a statist shill. Also it is good to remember that there are a lot of really stupid voters out there who haven't got a clue who any candidate is or what they stand for and can't think deeply enough to even question the legitimacy of the system. It is good to funnel off some of those votes into a harmless candidate.

So, if you are a radical, hard-core libertarian or an anarchist who has the inclination, and you feel like dealing with the violations and scrutiny, go ahead and run for office under whichever party's banner you want. Just don't expect your own guys to vote for you.

In Albuquerque news: ABQ LEOs have shot 13 people so far this year; killing nine of them. At least the dead avoided being charged with the counterfeit "crime" of "aggravated assault against an officer" after being shot, because, you know, it's so violent to make a poor innocent LEO shoot you. They'd so much rather kill you in less obvious ways. I'm sorry, but the disingenuousness from these parasites just infuriates me.

*
Donate?

The State- the definition

"The State"* is the term used to encompass the entirety of the concept of externally-imposed, coercive government, whether a small, local town council, or a global empire.

It is (obviously) composed of individuals who might or might not be enthusiastic about committing acts of evil on their own, but by working together under the myth of the legitimacy of authoritarianism, they can do nothing else. There is nothing good about "The State". It is, and always has been, criminal.

*Capitalized in order to ridicule The State's empty self-importance.


.

Free-range idiots- they are out there

As a result of the recent election, the "localish" city government was denied the bond issues they were pushing to build a new jail and courthouse. A couple of days later one commissioner was quoted in the paper as saying: “Tell us how to do it. If somebody out there in TV land or somebody that comes to the meetings has an idea (we want to hear it).” and “We need the public’s help. As our bosses, what do you want us to do?”

So, I posted the following:

I have my doubts you really want "help and solutions", but you did ask:

#1- Stop enforcing counterfeit "laws" (those which have no specific, individual, victim- "society" can't be a victim). No drug "laws", no gun "laws", no prostitution "laws". If someone commits theft, aggression, or fraud, using these or any other things as an excuse, prosecute the actual wrong acts, not the silly "crimes" that are simply based on emotional/religious ideas of what people "ought not do".

#2- The focus of any real justice system must be restitution, not imprisonment. Jailing a thief doesn't restore the victim to his pre-crime condition (what real "justice" is all about). In most cases, it doesn't help the victim of an attack, either.

#3- Let people defend themselves with the correct, fully-functional tools designed for defense, everywhere they may go without fear of becoming a victim of the "justice system".

Surprisingly, and not in any way usual, my comment only got two replies. One of lukewarm agreement (who only slightly missed what I was saying by stating that "...I do believe certain individuals ... should be jailed for an appropriate time."), and a much more typical response.

That one demonstrated very clearly what people with functioning brains are up against. He said:

"Yes, stop enforcing laws. That'll show em! That'll totally make this place safe and crime free. You're right dullhawk (apt screename), cutting assault and robbery rates is easy when you make assault and robbery legal."

Did the idiot even read what I wrote, or is he just too stupid to comprehend the written word? Pinheads like this are why I sometimes wonder if it's even worth the effort.

*
Donate?

Cops found "not guilty" of fabricating evidence

Cops found "not guilty" of fabricating evidence

Three cops who were accused of fabricating evidence against two suspects in a particularly cruel multiple murder case have been cleared by a jury. The "Torreon cabin murders" happened in December 1995, sixty five miles southeast of Albuquerque.

Of course they were cleared. Juries almost always find cops "not guilty". Yet, the preponderance of evidence shows that cops are more likely to be bad guys than the general population. They are not trustworthy. They have more in common with those in prison for crimes of extreme violence than they have in common with you or me. The job attracts damaged people who like to hurt others, yet are too afraid of doing it without the guns of The State backing them up to go freelance. Cowardly bullies with a cruel streak and a badge are a bad combination. Until police are reined in again, it is inevitable.

There are so many cases where cops fabricated evidence, lied under oath, filed false reports, and tampered with the crime scene for their own purposes that I wouldn't trust a LEO's version of events unless I saw the crime happen and the cop's version matched what I witnessed exactly.

So, did the cops really fabricate the evidence? Probably. But no one but the cops and those they accused will ever know the truth. Did those they tried to trap actually play some role in the murders? There is no way to know for sure.

It is important to know who really commits acts of aggression. Knowing the truth is much more important than getting a conviction or fooling the public into thinking you are "doing something". Real bad guys will eventually pay (sooner than later, if the right to own and to carry firearms were respected) with or without cops lying to catch them.

*
Donate?

New comments on an old post

I would like to draw your attention to some new comments on an old post. I am not being very "pragmatic" in my defense of liberty. Anyway, go here and read the rest of the comments.

The Fifth of November...

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

The Government's tyrannical Plot,

I know of no reason

Why the Government's Treason

Should ever be forgot.

President, Congress, t'was their intent

To violate rights; our money they spent.

Thousands of laws, each a new crime;

Liberty, it seems, had run out of time.

Elections were held to pacify some,

A new batch of scoundrels to Washington come.

Wake up, wake up, your life is your own!

Wake up, wake up, YOU sit on the throne!

And how shall we live? In true liberty!

Property rights: absolute with one limit

Property rights: absolute with one limit

Yes, I said long ago that I had written my last word on the Bubble Theory of Property Rights. Well, it keeps rearing its head, and the more I examine the concepts and counter-arguments, the more sure I am of where I stand. That still doesn't mean I am right.


Property rights are absolute (even if The State acts as if they are not). Property rights have only one limit: they end where the property ends. You can't claim ownership of your neighbor's house just because it is adjacent to your property, even if your property is completely surrounding his property and he must parachute to his house from deep space in order to avoid crossing your land. Your property lines are where your property rights end in this example. Those who own land in the middle of national forests still retain ownership of their own property (even if the feds aren't happy about it and seek to violate those property rights in myriad ways).

The same goes for smaller units of property such as a house or business and an individual allowed to enter that property. If you allow me to come onto your property, my body does not become your property even though it is engulfed by your property. My property "bubble" extends to the outer surface of my clothing because my clothes are still my clothes even if you allow me, and them, on your property. Your property rights end at my surface, and do not penetrate any deeper. So, anything beneath the surface of my clothes, as long as it remains only there, is occupying only my property even if I am surrounded and engulfed by your property at your permission.

You can insist I leave my rights behind if I enter your property, but the demand is no more valid than the demand that I become your unwilling sex slave if I enter your property. Slavery or murder is not OK just because you "only" do it on your own property. Now, obviously, anyone evil enough to make the demand that you relinquish your rights in order to enter their property is someone you should avoid if at all possible. It is better to avoid putting yourself in these situations if you can. You can cooperate or not as you see fit, but I don't consider it noble to kowtow to bad guys.

Added as clarification: It's not so much that I think I have a right to carry a concealed weapon onto other people's property, it is that I don't believe I have a right to forbid such on my own property. If I invite someone, I invite them as a sovereign individual with all their rights fully intact. I have no right to regulate what is in their pockets as long as it stays there in every way.

* * *

A federal jury in Albuquerque has convicted a Rio Rancho man of the "crime" of being a "convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition". They've obviously never heard of FIJA.org.

The man was charged in the case in June 2009 after a cop stopped his car and during an undoubtedly unethical violation of property rights, found a .40-caliber pistol and ammunition in a computer bag.

Why was he stopped? Why did the cop illegally search the car? And why, if the man is still a danger who can't be trusted with a gun, was he running free? Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted. And rights can never be "lost".

On top of this, one of the two "felonies" he was previously convicted for was probably not even wrong. "Aggravated assault on an officer" is one of those false crimes that anyone who doesn't bow to a LEO's puffed-up "authority" quick enough, and is then put in a position of having to defend oneself from an attack by the authority-crazed cop, could be charged with.

*
Donate?

Tribal leaders make bad ruling

Tribal leaders make bad ruling

The leaders of the Jemez Pueblo, northwest of Albuquerque, have banned a newspaper from tribal land because they think it sensationalized a story on a murder.

The tribal leaders claim they are exempt from the First Amendment. I agree, since the Bill of Rights only applies to governments of the US. I'm all in favor of governments not being affiliated or cooperative with that particular criminal organization.

However the tribal leaders are not exempt from the laws of right and wrong, and freedom of speech (and the press) still exists just as fully at the pueblo as anywhere else. Rights are no more subject to tribal "law" than to Federal "law". It doesn't matter if you are talking the right of free speech, the right of freedom of the press, the right of freedom of religion, the right of owning and carrying guns, the right to not testify against yourself, or anything else. "Laws" can never repeal even the most trivial right. A right doesn't cease to exist just because you happen to own (or control) property and you don't like the right.

By trying to violate freedom of the press they are exposing themselves as unworthy of the title of "leader" and are acting as Rulers instead. They are committing evil just as much as any government does when engaging in the same, wrong, acts. Individuals can decide, on an individual basis, whether they want to buy the paper or not. Try to convince them to boycott, don't use coercion.

*
Donate?

Liberty's false friends

Liberty's false friends

You can't get more, or more complete, liberty for yourself by restricting it for others. Liberty is an interconnected web. Pull one thread and the entire structure is damaged.

"Immigration" is a good example. It shows why the Tea Party crowd is not helpful to liberty. You can't claim to be for liberty, but then advocate for government to be more powerful in "just one area"; more government control, but only when you "really want it". It always damages all liberty.

You also can't claim you are for liberty, but be enthusiastic about the government-controlled military. It doesn't work that way. The more powerful and bigger the government's military is, the more exceptions liberty suffers, and the more enemies the military creates to threaten you.

A lot of the Tea Party folk claim that these aspects of government power enhance liberty, after all, their justification goes, you can't be free if your country has been invaded and overrun. Yet, the country has already been invaded (by an ideology- collectivism) and overrun (by statists and authoritarians whose goals are the opposite of liberty). These are a greater
danger to your real, livable liberty than all the "terrorists" in the entire world could ever dream of being.

Add to these travesties the War on (some) Drugs, government-sanctioned or rationed marriage, entitlements, "gun control" that even Tea Partiers say is "reasonable", favoring one primitive and violent religion over another primitive and violent religion, the taxation that Tea Partiers are saying is "enough" rather than admitting it is ALL theft, and all the "required" permits, licenses, red tape, and other government violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... it adds up.

One example of those violations of rights and liberty that Tea Partiers are generally OK with: Two massage parlors in Albuquerque were raided and shut down yesterday by LEOs- for prostitution. Consensual trade, "even" in sexual gratification, between responsible, self-owning people is no one else's business. "Laws" attempting to control, forbid, or regulate
it are counterfeit "laws" and it is wrong to advocate or enforce such "laws". (Any "legitimate" massage provider who tipped off the LEOs to the prostitution should be shunned into bankruptcy. It isn't as if they were actual competitors... or were they?)

I'm certainly not perfect, and I have my preferences and opinions. Yet I recognize that liberty is the closest to "perfect" there is, and I can set aside my petty short-term desires to work toward that which I really want. Liberty for ALL, which includes me and those I love. You can't damage your enemy's liberty without doing damage to your own. This is a textbook example of "cutting off your nose to spite your face". It is just a simple truth, and it just isn't worth it.

When Tea Partiers, or anyone else who claims to value liberty, supports these enemies of liberty and their anti-liberty agenda it shows they haven't thought it through, or they are lying.

*
Donate?

You've got better things to do than vote

You've got better things to do than vote

And here are a few things to remind yourself of that truth in case you get tempted to play the rigged game:

* * *

"They're quick and slick, they're insincere..."
Yes, I know that line was originally referring to heffalumps and woozles, but it applies at least equally well to Democrats and Republicans (or any politician for that matter). You'll be surprised at how appropriate to politics this little song is. (I'm surprised no one has ever put the song to photos and clips of politicians who fit every description in the song.) Enjoy it and pay attention to the words: Heffalumps and Woozles.

* * *

From the blog of Kevin Wilmeth, the former and greatly missed Anchorage Libertarian Examiner, comes this explanation of how to (bring yourself to) vote on Election Day.

* * *

Feel free to Mock the Vote from wherever you happen to find yourself when the thought crosses your mind. Don't bother going to the polls to do it, or the vote will be mocking YOU.

* * *

For those of you interested in a local angle, here's an article by the amazing Will Grigg on a home-grown Albuquerque thug. An absolutely disgusting excuse for a human, but it's good to be aware that these parasites walk among us. People like this show why voting will never increase your liberty. You will still be forced to resist and break thugs of this sort at some point if liberty is to be rescued. Might as well get used to the idea.

* * *

I think, for my own amusement, I'll print out, on adhesive paper, the "button" I made to illustrate this article and wear it when I go out today. Feel free to use it, too, if you want.

*
Donate?