Gold Rush - gold cap

For those of you who have one of those magic mirrors called a "television", which is attached by dish or cable to the channelsphere, you might check out Discovery Channel's "Gold Rush: Alaska".

And, if you are paying attention while watching it, you might notice that the best-looking star of the show wears a cap with a familiar symbol.

The cap was made by someone else, with my permission. I was a bit uncomfortable with it since it included the phrase "Strike Back 2010" and was advocating voting as a way to increase liberty, but as I have said before, as long as you are moving with me in the general direction of "more liberty", we can work out the details of where you want to get off the train later.

This brings up another subject. Another business has gotten my permission to make more flags (and other products) with the Time's Up flag design. I will let you know when these items are available.

Examiner- Adios, amoebas

Maybe it's just the flu talking, but I think I have posted my last Examiner column. They found a way to cut pay again, and, although it might not have made much real difference, I'm just tired of them. Of course, this means I am gonna be hurting even worse, financially.

*

Donate?

Laws don't put end to problems

Laws don't put end to problems

It seems a certain violent Arizona resident named Jared would have done well to have read my column last week. The message that right and wrong are universal rather than subjective is something he apparently needed. Of course, if he is crazy, as seems likely, he may not have understood. And if he is simply willing to commit evil acts without regard to right or wrong, then nothing could have changed his course short of effective self defense measures.

It is not right to kill a person who is not attacking you or others, or making a credible threat to do so. Even in the case of killing in self defense, you must not harm any innocent person. As a libertarian, I understand that "collateral damage" is never acceptable. Never. It changes self defense into an act of aggression.

I cringe when tragedies like this multiple murder happen, and not always for the right reason. There isn't even time to consider the innocent lives destroyed before the usual spokespeople start pointing fingers at their standard boogeymen to any news media that will listen. Guns; free speech; dissent: all the things that are necessary for liberty are blamed. As has been said by one of Obama's henchmen "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste..." In this case the crisis is even being used to deepen the chasm between the illusory concepts of "The Right" and "The Left". There is no "Right" or "Left"; there is only respect for liberty for all, or support of tyranny for at least some- liberty or authoritarianism- and this transcends the false political spectrum that we are told exists.

I just get the feeling that the anti-liberty crowd has a hard time not smiling when a tragedy of this sort happens. They get to start crying "There oughta be a law!"; no matter that murder and assault are already illegal, and really can't be made "more illegal". No problem has ever been solved with a "law".

Instead all the proposed "solutions" will only make events like this inevitable. Stifle free speech, "heated rhetoric", and you have closed a vital pressure-release valve. Add more illegal gun control "laws" and bad guys who have no ethical problem with violating the Zero Aggression Principle and the laws against murder will still find ways to be armed and hurt the innocent, while some good people will be stopped from being able to effectively defend themselves. Ignore the fact that this shooter was an apparent fan of collectivism, and blame individualism, and you'll marginalize the only people who can truly be counted on to do the right thing.

Nothing will ever stop truly evil people from harming others, but really respecting liberty and the basic rights we all possess will prevent more tragedies than any other tactic. It's time to stop letting the few bad guys out there dictate what the rest of us must put up with. It's time to stop surrendering liberty to the twisted misfits.

(Once again, this is as I wrote it, not as it was published.)

Flu-cation

I have had the flu and have been out of circulation for a few days. It's almost been a vacation. The flu is better than the insanity of the gun-banners and other liberty-phobes, which I see hasn't calmed down any in my absence. I think I'll go back to bed.

Frustration!

You just can't discuss a subject rationally with people who get their world view from their interpretation of the opinions of imaginary beings and think the written records of the opinions of reality-ignorant, brutal, slave-owning, genocidal, female-subjugating tribes are "The Law". Especially when they cherry pick those writings so carefully (and apparently without any realization they are doing so. And yes, I am cherry-picking as well, but one turd in the pie ruins the whole pie and should not be ignored).

This has come to a head due to my CNJ columns. This is a very statist and superstitious region, and the commenters demonstrate that in spades. Every topic gets hijacked into a "Well, God says..." sort of thing. If I wanted to write about religion, I would write about religion. (I guess I sort of do anyway since so many worship The State against all reason, and they don't like me showing that god as an imaginary, yet destructive, delusion.)

Want to end a conversation with me? Just start basing all your "arguments" on religious notions rather than universal principles.

Looking down the barrel...

I am worn out from all this nonsense over the Giffords shooting.

I really do try to care about it but the victim disarmament crowd- the Mass Murderer Fan Club- makes it very hard for me to care that politicians were shot. I am very upset at the death of the 9 year-old girl, though.

But, truly, the balderdash from the hoplophobes makes me much more concerned about protecting my own life and family. It is hard to be really concerned with the tragedy that has befallen others when you see that the real bad guys have you in their sights and are drooling over the chance to "take you out" next. That is what is happening here. Those who want to take your guns are willing for you to die to further their agenda. And they are happy to have their tools kill you.

More corrupt 'law enforcement officers'?

More corrupt 'law enforcement officers'?

Three Bernalillo County (Albuquerque area) deputies who work on the despicably authoritarian "DWI unit" are suspected of falsifying timesheets.

All I can say is that if they really have been doing what they are suspected of doing, at least they were "only" stealing money (stealing extra money, on top of the theft that normally funds their paychecks) instead of adding other rights violations to their offending behavior. We are all better off if they don't show up for "work".

And these are the guys allowed to enforce the "laws" on the rest of us? This is not the result of "a few bad apples"; it is absolutely inherent in The State and its version of "law enforcement". You can't fix something that is wrong from its very foundation.
*
Donate?

Quick, Close the safety valve!

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

The authoritarians and statists who are wringing their hands over "heated rhetoric" don't realize they are trying to close the best pressure-release valve that exists.

Add to that the fact that they are also dancing in the blood of the dead and injured while they gleefully dust off their carefully-prepared new violations of the Second Amendment and basic human rights, and you have a perfect recipe for "interesting times".

Maybe, in spite of their pious assurances to the contrary, this is exactly what they want. Judging by their actions and their heated rhetoric, it sure seems that way.

*

Donate?

Another "Manchurian Shooter"

I think the shooter in Arizona is being exposed, more and more as information becomes available, as another "Manchurian shooter"- prepped and drugged and unleashed at a time when the BATFE is under scrutiny for recent, additional, illegal activities and more people are becoming aware of the actions of The State and how those actions violate their liberty.

Even if this is not the case, idiots in government need to learn that their actions and their rhetoric have consequences and can cause tightly-wound individuals to snap. Keep seeking to violate liberty and this will keep happening, no matter what "laws" are passed (and, in fact, directly because of those "laws"). Of course, this is exactly what The State wants.

Not one more inch!

*

Donate?

Thugs steal, destroy, house

Thugs steal, destroy, house

Once again "code enforcement" and complicit neighbors skip vapidly hand-in-hand toward the collectivist police state.

An elderly Albuquerque man's property rights have been violated in the worst way by the thugs of the city. Known as a "hoarder" and said by neighbors to sometimes be "aggressive", his home has been stolen and destroyed by the city.

An anonymous neighbor claims "we weren't against him personally". Really? There is nothing more personal than stealing a man's home.

And the claims of "aggression" seem suspicious to me as well. Who wouldn't be "aggressive" when having his property rights violated over and over again? This wasn't the first time "authorities" had entered his property without his permission, in other words, trespassed, and stolen things from him that they decided he didn't need. It isn't "aggression" to defend your property rights against those who seek to violate them.

I am also very ashamed of the "work crew" that did the actual destruction. People who do the dirty work of The State are as guilty as those who make the evil decisions. I know times are tough and money is hard to come by, but taking blood money is not the solution. Doing so makes you the bad guy, no matter what you may want to think of yourself.

Refresher on right and wrong

Refresher on right and wrong

Before an event like the one which happened in Arizona comes to Albuquerque (or other parts of New Mexico), I think it is time for a refresher course on right and wrong.

I know this is not necessary for libertarians and anarchists, but I do this in order to show the statists which side we are on.

First off, please watch the Zero Aggression Principle video, then read this article about right and wrong, then another about the need to do what is right, and finally this most recent one about right and wrong being universal with the ironically-written headline.

Then, if you still don't understand, repeat as necessary.
*
Donate?

Lawsuit at the ABQ corral

Lawsuit at the ABQ corral

The police union is suing the Albuquerque mayor over the issue of "take-home cars" that the LEOs had grown to feel entitled to. The union mouthpiece claims the new policy endangers "officer safety" and "public safety" [sic].

If the cops are scared when driving their own cars, I question their grasp of reality and wonder why cop cars are so much safer than yours or mine. If they feel endangered by this policy, they can always go out and get an actual dangerous job, rather than their cushy tax-suckling gig. The only time "public safety" [sic] is at risk is when those police cars are being used by police.

It's too bad that when government appendages sue one another it is our money that is wasted, because I sure do enjoy seeing the bad guys fight among themselves. It's like seeing two firing squads facing each others' ranks and just enjoying the show; while knowing that I had to buy both side's guns and ammo, uniforms and briefcases, and that I will be billed for the clean-up and the medical care of the survivors.

There is a glimmer of hope: The union says it will drop the lawsuit if the city council comes up with a "better alternative". Well, city council, here it is: fire all the cops and let people take responsibility for their own safety once more, without the "legal" hindrance of The State's anti-self defense "laws" getting in the way. It's the only thing that really works, after all.

*
Donate?

Only you can judge what is right

Only you can judge what is right

(Is it just me, or does the headline which was written for this column seem to say the polar opposite of my main point? I was trying to say that right and wrong are universal regardless of your opinions.)

Last week's column emphasized the need for each of us to do the right thing in order to improve society. Most commenters seemed to agree, but were not necessarily sure what "the right thing" is. Fair enough.

Real right and wrong are pretty easy to grasp as long as you aren't looking for excuses or shortcuts to get around them. They are not dependant upon opinions or the prevailing culture; these substitutes will lead you astray. Circumstances, "laws", or personal beliefs don't change wrong into right. Nor does "majority make right" in the case of believing it is OK for fifty percent, plus one, to be able to dictate, by "law", what others will be prohibited from doing. Most things are not up for a vote.

Avoiding doing the wrong thing is probably even more important than doing the right thing. It is never the right thing to cause harm- economic or physical damage- to someone who is not harming you. Put another way, it is never the right thing to attack someone; it is never the right thing to steal; it is never the right thing to deceive someone who is not harming or threatening you.

Beyond the actual wrongs, there will always be petty disagreements about this or that. If you don't like it, don't participate. If a friend insists on doing something you can't tolerate, and won't change to suit you, find a different friend. Don't cross the line by forcing the friend to do as you wish.

So, what is the right thing? It is the right thing to take responsibility for your actions and deal with the consequences that result. This does mean looking out for your own interests, but not at the expense of doing the wrong thing to others. After all, if you don't look out for yourself and your family, who will? The responsibility can fall on no one else. Your interests do not conflict with the genuine interests of others. It is right to protect your interests from all those who seek to violate them through aggression, theft, and fraud.

In many cases "doing the right thing" means you must learn to mind your own business and deal with being offended by the consensual behavior of those around you. It doesn't mean you have to like it or refrain from expressing your opinion, it just means you have no right to meddle or support "laws" that meddle in the lives of others. It means that you need to recognize that not everyone subscribes to the same beliefs that motivate you, and as long as they are not attacking, stealing, or defrauding anyone you need to leave them alone. After all, even YOU do things that offend someone.

(As submitted, not as published.)

*

And, if you can, Donate?

The future is a toss-up

Will the future be bright or will it be bleak?

Will scientific advances give us incredibly long, healthy, and prosperous lives?

Or will The State reward its elites with those advances while making the lives of the rest of us dreary, hopeless nightmares with the jackboot stomping the human face forever, while our private lives - along with our property and self determination- are a thing of the past. Make no mistake- this nightmare future is the future The State's architects (from the "left" and the "right") dream of subjecting us to, and they will unless stopped.

Right now it's a toss-up as to whether the forces of good or the forces of evil- those who seek to control the private, voluntary and non-aggressive behavior of others- will win.

At least in the short-term. In the long term, history shows that control freaks die violent deaths, in mass events, eventually.

War on America reaps more victims

War on America reaps more victims

Two young men have fallen victim to the thugs in blue. They were stopped and arrested on New Year's Eve for doing something about as "wrong" as walking across a room.

Their "crime"? Smoking marijuana and selling some to someone else. So now they face made-up charges including "conspiracy". Yeah, there's a conspiracy all right, but it is The State who is guilty in this one.

The only thing these young men did wrong was admitting anything to the LEO. Never speak to cops. Never.

If this gets to trial, which I hope it does since no one should ever plead "guilty", this is a good opportunity for a fully-informed jury to nullify the "law" in defense of justice.

The illusion of government efficacy

The State can give the illusion of working to those saddled with the misguided need to look and see someone "in control" and running things, even if that control is not real or is harmful.

For the rest of us, those who look at whether things are really working, we see that when left alone, people self-organize very efficiently. We see government as causing chaos. We see that society works best when meddled with least- and never from a "top-down" direction or through a coercive monopoly. Of course, the phrase "top-down" implies that Rulers are "above" us, which isn't even partially true.

The most pathetic drunk in the gutter is a better person than the most benevolent Ruler. At least the drunk is not telling you how to run your own life, and threatening to kill you if you defy him. Well, unless he is also a politician or a cop, that is.

LEO kills pedestrian

LEO kills pedestrian

The new year begins with death-by-cop in Albuquerque. And, of course, the knee-jerk response by The State is to check the dead man's system for intoxicants rather than checking the cop who was driving. The double standard is once again at work. Just imagine if you or I had run over a cop who was on foot on the street. Would the first reaction have been to check the cop's blood for alcohol, or would the driver have been the automatic suspect? We both know the answer to that.

The cop had spent the night involved in a "DWI checkpoint" and had just left the scene of that offense when he hit the pedestrian. This doesn't mean the cop was "clean", and only a blindly religious devotee of the US police state would make that assumption.

Now, perhaps the pedestrian really was at fault. It's likely that he at least shared responsibility for the accident. However, for the LEOs to get special treatment when an accident occurs only deepens the chasm between the agents of The State and the regular productive people of America.

This should also demonstrate that checkpoints don't make anyone safer, and in this case they tangentially killed someone. That cop had no legitimate excuse to be on the streets at that time, and probably would not have been had he not been leaving the scene of his violations of the rights to travel free from molestation and to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Tyranny kills.

*

Donate?

Rationality- not terribly popular these days

I just really don't know how to respond to people anymore when their only justification for thinking a certain course of action is right or wrong is based upon superstition and imaginary beings who they believe are watching them.

I stopped even looking at the comments on one of my Clovis News Journal columns when the commentary devolved into "this is wrong- and must be kept illegal- because God says it is wrong".

I'm sorry, but if you get your notions of right and wrong from a supposedly immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient supreme being who is fine and dandy with, and completely supportive of, slavery, genocide, and other things that are harmful to innocent people (and, yes, I am fully qualified to judge that most victims of these horrors do not deserve them), then you have no principles and no moral compass. You will fall for anything as long as some authority you respect tells you it's OK.

I know who deserves to be defended against. I know who should be left alone. I know who is harming others if I see it happening. I know what actions are causing actual harm and which ones are just offensive to someone. If I can know this, shouldn't your supreme being be able to know this too?

Or, is he (or the narrative of him) trapped by the words and attitudes that were written down by barbarous tribesmen thousands of years ago? Unable to escape a primitive and brutal culture that laid out the rules of the game and claimed that this being was forever completely unchanging, since he was already perfection personified. Good thing for him that his fan club is so good at cherry-picking. Still, craziness is craziness, no matter how popular it remains, and it should not be coddled and encouraged.

Factual or fictional; rational or completely insane. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. It is not within my rights to order you otherwise even if it were possible. But... you have no right to base "laws" upon your silliness. If you try to do so, and you harm other people in the process- people who were simply trying to live their own lives- you are worse than those you seek to stop from doing ... whatever. You are actively committing acts of evil.

Smart - evil = libertarian

I've come to the conclusion that smart people who are not evil are very likely to be libertarian. People who have struck me as highly intelligent have usually turned out to have a very strong libertarian streak when I find out more about them. Often enough that I think it is more than coincidence.

While dumb people may be libertarian, it's probably just because someone told them something that sounded good at the moment and they latched on (there is always the possibility I belong in this group). Dumb people seem to be very attracted to the notion that it is OK to push people around and kill them if they don't cooperate. Some hide behind The State and some do it on their own, but there is no real difference between the two kinds of aggression.

Smart people will think things through for themselves and come to the libertarian position all by themselves without any outside guidance. They are also less likely to abandon their libertarian principles under coercion or distress.

Smart people who cling to the barbaric desire to harm people who do not deserve to be harmed right now will gravitate toward one form of authoritarianism or another. It is the only way they can justify the harm they cause (and usually avoid immediate consequences). They can pretend to be something other than a bad person, but it is a transparent act. Many of these end up joining the world's biggest, most violent gang.

Why "Dull 'Hawk"?

People seem to really enjoy using my "Dull 'Hawk" moniker (often shortened to "dullhawk" online) as an insult. The "dull" part, anyway. I'm sure I've explained this before, but I can't find it, so I suppose it's appropriate to post it here.

Dull 'Hawk is my "mountainman name", and is short for "Dull Tomahawk". (We mountainmen usually call our tomahawks "'hawks" among ourselves.)

So, why is my 'hawk dull? Actually, it isn't. Back in 1992 I was at a mountainman rendezvous and was competing in the tomahawk-throwing competition. My tomahawk would hit the target every time... and fall off. In practice it stuck every single time, but in the contest it simply refused. Performance anxiety, I suppose.

Anyway, people gave me the name "Dull 'Hawk" at that rendezvous and I kept it.

The State- collapsing under its own failures

The State- collapsing under its own failures

The State is a failure. Need proof?

An Albuquerque police detective has been placed on "administrative duty" while his arrest for punching his girlfriend is sorted out. They were fighting over her taxes. Fail, fail, and fail again. So the police department is quickly distancing themselves by emphasizing he is just a "part-time" Only One. Just in case their "thin blue line" fails to protect one of their Brothers.

The girlfriend should not be forced, by The State, to experience the stress of cooperating with and enabling the theft of her property. There should be no special elite class who are given special treatment when accused of serious offenses. If he really punched her, should he be doing anything "official" for the APD, or might this give a dangerous man opportunity to harm more people with impunity? In a free society this entire situation evaporates and would probably never have happened in the first place.

Then, to add failure on top of multiple failures highlighted above, the "career criminal" who has become a prime example of the failure of The State to do what its supporters claim is its number one job has been arrested for the 128th time. In a free society he would have been shot and stopped long ago by one of his intended victims, rather than being protected by "laws" against defense of self and property.

Enough is enough.

Politicians / thieves

I, and others, have frequently called politicians "thieves", which is an accurate statement. However, I think a much more accurate way to look at it is that all thieves are politicians.

There are only two ways to get something- either you earn it through consensual trade, or you steal it. This act of stealing what you want is known as "the political method". That means in order to be more accurate and honest when we speak of those who are committing theft, we should always refer to them by the name "politicians", since that is truly what they are. They have chosen the political method over consensual trade.

So, I will try to remember this and use the term appropriately whenever a theft occurs, for example "Two politicians held up a bank today..." or "A man was robbed in a parking lot by a politician..." Who knows, freelance thieves, oops- politicians might just be insulted enough to want to change.

Zero Aggression Principle video

And check out all the videos in this series here: link

Reader feedback from CNJ

I got an email this morning from a reader of the local paper. In it the person questioned my parentage, complained about my appearance in the picture beside my columns (included here for your amusement), and then began to complain that I never say anything good about Clovis.

Really? Did the person actually read any of my columns or just make an assumption? Because I thought I was very positive this week about the people who live here. I don't think I have ever been unkind to the regular people in the area in my columns; only to the parasites who prey on the productive people. Plus I always try to point out that the bad people are a tiny, if visible, minority everywhere. Good people outnumber the bad by a huge margin everywhere- as long as you don't only look inside criminal mobs.

She (?) did say one truthful thing when she said "you cannot say one nice thing about our city, state or,how our country is run" (all spelling and punctuation left as it was in the original). Right. Because they shouldn't be "run" at all. Top-down control is a bad idea no matter how you dress it up or how much you want to avoid taking responsibility for yourself. That has nothing to do with Clovis or America, but with the faulty notion of government. As I have said about America (that the USA is not America, but the biggest danger to America) I say about Clovis: the city government should not ever be confused with the city!

Also, I find I am corrupting our youth: "Do you not no [sic], that high school kids read our paper?" And...? They should be led to believe they are not responsible for themselves, but that Daddy Government should be worshiped and He will then take care of all their little troubles? Is that what she is saying? Young people are smarter than that, especially if shown the ethical alternatives to the statist lies. The bad ones will probably continue to be bad and seek either freelance criminal careers or State-sanctioned ones. Maybe if I can reach a few of the good ones I can help them avoid slavery- either as the slave master or the slave.

She goes on to say "And, your comments just rips apart,everything,our forfathers,have started?" Obviously a product of government schooling. History from the warped and wrong perspective of the Rulers. History turned upside-down and inside-out in order to support a revisionist agenda of collectivism and authoritarianism. Pathetic, but all too common.

Then, after being told to move away "from my paper" and from the area, she ends with this final comment (before signing off with another personal insult), which I found hilarious: "Dont upset us,with your crude Ideas," Hehe. Sorry, but that one made me smile. It's just packed full of comic goodness.

So, the CNJ reader feedback score stands at 1:1 for now. As always, I did write back and even refrained from taking advantage of the ample opportunities for ridicule which the email provided.

Do the right thing, law or no law

Do the right thing, law or no law

You know the right thing to do. I know you do. So don't wait for someone else to do it first and don't wait for a "law" to tell you to. Do it now.

I'm reminded of the Hobby Lobby shoppers who tackled a recent shoplifter. Instead of watching the thief and thinking to themselves "That's awful! Someone should do something about that" they took action and did the right thing. Thieves don't fear the law as much as they fear being stopped in their tracks by the only people who can be counted on to be right there when they attempt to carry out their attack. That is you and me, folks. If we once again make up our minds to always do the right thing we will be an insurmountable wall holding back the few bad guys living among us. The risk of being an attacker or a thief must be raised back up where it belongs.

The same need for personal accountability is reflected in the recent letter to the editor concerning speeding. Do the right thing yourself and, one person at a time, things get better. Most people drive at the speed they are most comfortable with, and consequently the speed at which they are the safest (ignoring for a moment the "speed limits" which are not based on anything but arbitrary ideas of what's best for everyone). Those who actually drive faster than they should will not be made responsible by "laws". In fact they may get a double thrill by not only driving faster than they should, but also in feeling they are rebels as long as they don't get caught. The answer is not more enforcement but more responsibility. Don't let a rude driver on your bumper force you to go faster (or slower) than you think you should, and don't feel guilty for blocking his path. And for goodness sake, teach your children to stay alert, aware, and out of the streets.

Need more ways to take action? If you think it is right for people to pay more taxes, don't wait for the tax rate on your neighbors to be increased by "law"; write a check out of your own bank account payable to the government right now.

The responsibility to govern yourself and to be accountable in all your actions reaches into every corner of your life. If you know someone who is in need, step in yourself to help. If you can't help, find those who can. Don't lay the burden on the "taxpayers" by handing that needy person over to some government agency. Getting a person caught up in the welfare and entitlement web is not helping them, but harming them and destroying the future of their children as well.

Reaching out to the government and expecting them to take care of things through more "laws, tougher enforcement, or welfare is the opposite of being responsible. You have the ability within yourself to make things better. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

(As submitted, not as published.)

Pardon Billy the Kid and then pardon John Wilkes Booth

Pardon Billy the Kid and then pardon John Wilkes Booth

One story that keeps cropping up in the Albuquerque news is whether the current governor will grant a pardon to Billy the Kid.

The issue centers on whether the then-governor, Lew Wallace, promised a pardon in exchange for the Kid's testimony, or whether a pardon was simply hinted at to get Billy to cooperate- in effect tricking him.

Either way I would say it seems to show that politicians weren't any more honest back then than they are now.

Many people might complain that this is a silly thing for a governor to be concerning himself with. Everyone actually connected with the case has been dead for a very long time, and the real truth of what was promised or lied about, as well as whether Billy the Kid was really a bad guy or not, is obscured by the time that has passed.

Maybe it is silly for this to be a government concern. Everything government does is silly at best and harmful at worst. However, as long as The State wastes time worrying about long-dead politicians and their broken promises to long-dead outlaws, The State isn't worrying about, and planning, new ways to molest the rest of us. This can only be good. It's like when all the cops are snarfing down donuts at the donut shop instead of harassing drivers. Let's encourage them to engage in useless, but harmless, exercises! At least until we can fire them all.

Along similar lines, I'd like to get the ball rolling on a pardon for John Wilkes Booth for his freelance trial, sentencing, and justified execution of that murderous tyrant Abraham Lincoln.
*
Donate?

Societal Cancer

Cancer is a hideous, deadly disease. It kills way too many people long before "their time". Yet, there is a form of cancer that is often not recognized, and sometimes is even intentionally encouraged. It is Societal Cancer, also known as "The State", or simply "government".

Societal Cancer has killed more people than all other forms of cancer combined. Often after warning signs which are discounted and ridiculed by other sufferers who are in denial. Whereas other forms of cancer are recognized universally as something to be eradicated, Societal Cancer is frequently praised and people are intentionally given the disease against their will- usually at birth.

The good news is that there is a proven cure that is available to every person. It is self responsibility and self control. It is as simple as minding your own business and leaving non-aggressive people alone. And a withdrawal of consent to cooperate with your own destruction by the cancer.

Join in the campaign to stomp out all forms of cancer, including Societal Cancer.

*

Donate?

Bubble Theory vs the ZAP etc.

I've been thinking a lot about my so-called "Bubble Theory of Property Rights" recently. Part of the reason is probably because of the video I made to try to explain my views on it. The rest of the reason is simply because it seems so completely self-evident to me, even in the face of the arguments against it.

Using the concealed weapon example is easiest for me because that's where the discussion began, but it applies just as well to anything you could carry or wear privately on (or in) your body.

It applies to the TSA abuses. It is what the Fourth Amendment was supposed to protect (although it was then thoroughly compromised with weasel-words telling how government could violate it "legally"). It is at the heart of self-ownership and individual sovereignty, since it means making choices for yourself and accepting the consequences of those choices rather than being responsible for other people's choices.

But I began to wonder how it held up against the Zero Aggression Principle. After studying it, I realized it passes with flying colors.

I completely agree with those who disagree with my Bubble theory of property rights on one particular point: Forbidding weapons from being carried concealed by visitors to private property does not initiate force.

However, the reverse is also true. Bubble theory does not initiate force in any way. You are not using physical force on another person by exercising your bodily property rights even when surrounded by their property.

Is being ZAP-compliant enough? I maintain that the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient, for ethical behavior. You must also not initiate deceit nor commit non-aggressive theft (fraud).

How does Bubble Theory stack up here? It does not deceive any innocent person, nor does it steal any object from anyone. It "steals" no part of the other property owner's rights from him, since his rights end where his property ends, and therefore does not penetrate the bubble of property traveling around with other people's bodies.

The only time it would initiate fraud is if you explicitly agreed to not carry anything the property owner forbade, and then did so anyway. Otherwise, while it might be nicer to acknowledge the prohibition and agree to abide by it, you are not harming anyone in any real way, neither physically nor economically, if you ignore their unreasonable demands. You are not violating the ZAP, nor are you harming anyone, but are taking responsibility for yourself and expressing your individual sovereignty.

That leaves only trespassing as a possible wrong you have committed. Is the property open to "the public", or did you receive an invitation? Then you are not trespassing if you are there. What about your "forbidden object"? An object can not trespass; only a person can. (If you go onto the other person's property and drop your "forbidden object", then you are littering. This is about as close to trespassing as an object can come, but the offense is yours, not the object's.)

No one is obligated to open their property to the presence of others. "Hermit" is a legitimate lifestyle choice. However, if you want to have it both ways: to not be a hermit, but also try to violate the personal rights of those who come to your property, you are not being a good person. I don't think you are even being rational.

As I say, I will still do my best to respect the wishes of other property owners, but I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I respect the property and liberty of others, as I claim to, then I can not pretend to have any control over what is inside their personal property bubbles. If I don't trust you with your liberty, then I don't trust you and have no business inviting you onto my property in the first place. You do what you feel is right, just as I will.

Added: I think claiming that real estate property rights can exist without "the bubble" of personal property rights existing is like claiming that you can exist without your grandparents ever having existed. Just my view on the matter...

The pot calling the kettle black- and filing suit

The pot calling the kettle black- and filing suit

A former student of Sandia High School in Albuquerque is suing a teacher and the school district because he claims the teacher made racial jokes at his expense. Yet, the only supposedly "racial" comment the news report singles out is that the teacher called him a "black hole".

I hate to tell the little genius, but "black hole" is not a racial comment at all. That is simply the name of a physical phenomenon that he somehow reminded the teacher of. It is no more racist than would calling him a "black sheep" be (something I readily admit to being). It is not racist to mention "the pot calling the kettle 'black'". It is not racist to fear black cats as bad luck. Stupid, yes, but not racist.

I have known a bunch of people who could have been called "black holes". Any information you gave them got sucked in by their intense density and was utterly destroyed. No information or intelligence ever shone from them in any way.

Sorry, but someone who dwells on things of this nature, looking for a "racist angle" to claim victimhood with, is themselves a racist and needs to grow up. Fast; before you have made such a fool of yourself you can never recover.

None of this in any way excuses the inexcusable existence of "public schools". This could just as easily happen in any other education setting- except that teachers and learners could be matched more efficiently, and no one who qualified as a "black hole" would face compulsory attendance "laws" if they were a waste of time, and your stolen money would not be used to pay for the resulting legal battle- in a free society that had rid itself of the government indoctrination camps we euphemistically call "schools".

Forgive my whine

I have to admit, I don't feel like writing anything recently. I'm tired. I feel it is pointless to write words that will be lost on those who are only too happy to bend over for The State as long as The State is killing and harming "those people" on their behalf. And the decent people (like you) already know what I'm going to write most of the time anyway.

I need to write my column for the CNJ in the next day or two and I have no clue what I might write on. I don't feel like starting a fight this week.

Examiner.... who knows. I desperately need to write for them or I won't be able to afford my phone (which is about the only social life I have). Sigh.

I'm drained and I need to be recharged. Yet, I am still draining instead.

Milgram runs amok in ABQ

Milgram runs amok in ABQ

Seems there might be a systemic problem in the "corrections" business.

An Albuquerque corrections officer has been arrested for raping a female inmate and for also allowing another inmate (who just happens to be a former corrections officer who is in jail for raping female inmates) to, once again, rape a female inmate.

It's like the Milgram Experiment being run full-scale with real-life consequences and no one to step in and stop it before it goes too far. Am I the only one who sees the evil of this? Especially considering how many of the inmates are in jail, not for doing anything wrong, but simply as political prisoners.

Once is too many times. Twice is horrible. How many times have not been reported, and how many other rapists are working for corrections [sic] facilities?

*

Please check out all my videos at KentForLiberty.com/videos. And feel free to spread them around.

*
Donate?

State should stay out of private life

State should stay out of private life

As a libertarian, I'm accustomed to being misunderstood. It goes with the territory. So many times commenters think they are being clever and have caught an error in libertarianism, only to reveal they didn't read or hear what was being said.

Case in point: a while ago, in a comment posted to an article in the Clovis News Journal about the election day failure of the bond issues for the local punishment industry, I observed that the "justice system" would be much cheaper and better if counterfeit "laws" were not being enforced. These are the "laws" the violation of which have no specific, individual victims; are expressions of self-ownership; or are consensual acts between responsible individuals which are no one's business except those involved.

Drug use, gun possession, most traffic "laws", prostitution, and things of this nature should never have been made into things The State seeks to regulate, prohibit, or control. Things that are actually wrong, such as theft or fraud, rape, kidnapping, assault, and murder would still be subject to punishment or, better yet, restitution. No one has a right to control your private life unless you violate the identical rights of others by infringing on their life or property.

However, if your drug use, your religious beliefs, your job, or anything else is used as an excuse for committing harmful acts (such as theft or assault), you are liable for the harm you caused and your rationale is meaningless. Wrong is wrong.

One reply to my comment sarcastically stated something to the effect that of course the "crime rate" would go down if assault and robbery were made legal. That the commenter completely missed my entire point was obvious. This is a source of frustration; not those who read and understand, yet disagree. They may be wrong, but their wrongness is at least based upon their principles and value system (flawed and inconsistent as those may be) rather than upon the belief I am advocating the opposite of what I am.

Often I want to reply that the commenter should have his mom re-read my comment to him, pointing out specifically the main thrust of my argument which pulls the rug out from under his snarky reply. Then I realize I would probably be wasting my time. It's better to just ignore those types. The problem is that they believe government can be the solution, and they vote based on that mistaken conviction. This should scare anyone who has sense.

(This is as I submitted it, not as it was published.)

Concert raided; violations invented

Concert raided; violations invented

The man who organized the concert that was raided by Albuquerque LEOs, who called it a "rave", is being singled out for the wrong thing.

Providing entertainment that is voluntary and initiates no force or fraud against anyone is not wrong. Tricking people into becoming a slave of the federal government is wrong. He organized the concert but he is also a national guard recruiter. Let's get our priorities straight.

I always wonder who alerts the LEOs to events such as this concert. Busybodiness should have consequences.

I see no allegations that anything wrong was going on, or that anyone was harmed. Of course, the "officials" were able to find "code violations". There is no building on earth that would be completely free of these if examined close enough. The "officials" also say that "underage girls" were wearing "very inappropriate outfits". So what? What gives the "officials" the authority to decide what is inappropriate for anyone else?

There exists in authoritarians the perverted desire to make certain that no one has any fun (except for their own guys who get a thrill out of their acts of coercion and control). I'll not excuse their harmful perversion.

*
Donate?

Criminal pruning hits ABQ

Criminal pruning hits ABQ

Albuquerque city officials are furious that someone took matters into their own hands and did a little freelance tree pruning. Practicing on some trees the city planted.

Yes, the pruning job was amateurish and may cause the trees to die (probably not as a direct result of the trimming, but as a result of the city removing the trimmed trees). Added to that, the city is reacting like a spoiled brat and throwing a tantrum over the incident. It's amusing to see.

Yet, government does the exact same thing to people's property all the time. With even less justification (assuming the city is correct about the reason the trees were pruned). They never let themselves be held accountable for the results of their actions. It just goes to show that government employees think they are an elite class; above everyone else. Their wishes and opinions become "law", while ours, if acted upon, are crimes.

*
Donate?

Dependent on the bully?

(This was submitted as my Clovis News Journal column for this week, but was rejected, so I am free to post it here instead. The air base is totally off-limits as a topic for me to write about in the paper.)

This area has an addiction and Cannon Air Force Base is the drug. Just look at what happened when the community was threatened with having the drug taken away. The resulting uproar was what you would expect of an addict faced with losing his supply.

As a libertarian I respect the right of an addict to use any substance he wants as long as he harms no one else. That means not stealing to support the habit, and not attacking anyone while using the addiction as an excuse. As long as he harms no one else it is none of my business what he chooses to do with himself, even if it means destroying himself in the process. [Note: I didn't really expect that the majority of CNJ readers would connect the dots that in this case, the government is stealing the money to "pay for" the air base, but I was trying to avoid mentioning, once again, that taxation is theft.]

I will still point out that addictions are not healthy and try to talk the addict out of his self-destructive behavior just because I care, but the final choice is always up to the addict.

Would breaking the addiction really be fatal to this area as so many seem to think? Or, as is usually the case, would it seem much less critical after the withdrawal symptoms had run their course? Wouldn't there be a freedom in not feeling that your survival is tied to someone else's benevolence? I think there would be. Would the community survive? Yes. There would be changes and adjustments, and life would go on. Don't ever let anyone make you think you need to beg them to keep you alive and healthy.

Personally, I think this community has an inferiority complex that is not realistic. There are a lot of good people here, and a lot of opportunities. It's easy for each of us to become a better person and make even more opportunities. Stop letting the few bad guys who do the majority of the bad things be your defining example of the area. Outshine them. Then maybe you won't tie your self worth to something that is really not within your control.

If it is what you want to do, embrace and celebrate the air base, but don't let it hold you hostage and don't let it bully you.

"Covenant of Unanimous Consent" video

*
Donate?

"Bubble of Personal Property" video

Here's my least popular idea, in video form!



Or you can watch the full length version:


*
Donate?

Government 'services'

There are different types of government "services" and different ways of dealing with them.

First off, there are the services that are harmless (other than in how they are financed). Libraries and zoos fall into this category. These things do not intrude upon the lives of those who have no interest in them. Don't like the library? Ignore it and no book police will come to your house and force books upon you. In a free society, let them be run by private individuals and funded voluntarily, rather than how it is usually done today, and there is nothing wrong with them. People could then choose to use them or not, and if not, they aren't forced to pay for that which they don't use.

Those voluntary services I have little problem using, even when government run, though I'd rather have the option of using privately funded alternatives.

Another category is the things that may be necessary but are monopolized by governments, so become a bureaucratic and regulatory burden. Things like roads and water systems. There is no reason to prohibit competition or to have government provide these things at all. If it really is necessary, someone will find a way to do it without coercion and theft.

The last category is less justifiable. This includes all those things that shouldn't be done at all. Things like (modern) police, bureaucrats, tax collectors, meter maids, code enforcement, and other coercive, property rights-violating, "services". These things have no value to individuals (and, by extension, civilization) and should not be done, and wouldn't be done if they didn't rely on theft, "taxation", to fund them.

This last category I would like to see done away with so utterly, completely, and totally that even the memory that they once existed is fuzzy.

*

An Albuquerque man gets to stay in his apartment a little longer due to an impossibility- or at least something statists claim is impossible: the generosity of individuals who were not forced at gun-point to help someone in need. I can't tell you how often statist claim that things like this would never happen without government coercion. Yet they do happen and here is proof.

*
Donate?

"Love it or leave it"- the video

"Love it or Leave it"

Suppose I am the "head of the household", and as such I claim to have certain rules for living under my roof.

Say I reserve the authority (not "the right" as no such right could ever exist) to stop and search any family member at any time. Not just while they were under my roof, but anywhere they might be.

Suppose I make up rules regarding how fast they may walk in the house (even in their own room, and even if no one else is present), what they are allowed to buy with their own money, and how much of their money they must turn over to me- not for rent, which is charged separately, but just for the privilege of existing. Suppose I dictate what color sheets they are allowed to put on their bed, or what they can read while relaxing there. Suppose I make them pay a ransom on each thing they buy with their own money.

Suppose I tell them I own their body and dictate what they can and can't do with themselves. What they are allowed to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest.

I will also demand they allow me to photograph them naked or grope their body in an intimate and invasive way before they leave the house, or perhaps even when they try to go from room to room in the house.

I, backed up by the other members of the house who see nothing wrong with this system, say "if you don't like it, move in with another family somewhere." If the unhappy person decides they don't like living in the house, under my rules, they can theoretically move out, but only with my permission and under my conditions. Even if they move out they will still be ordered to hand over a percentage of the money they will earn. Plus, I will demand they give me most of their property before they leave. If they don't want to abandon their property or other loved ones to the abusive "head of household" they are told "then shut up and stop complaining!"

Such a "head of household" would be an abusive, insane, monster who would be subject to self defensive actions by those he abuses.

Welcome to the America of the "Love it or leave it" taterheads.

(See the video version, too!)

*

In Albuquerque news: A "fugitive" is being sought by The Law after slipping out of his ankle monitor. Seems to me he wasn't "a fugitive" until after he got rid of the tracking device.

He has been convicted of nothing yet, but is said to be a "Mexican national" and is facing "federal narcotics trafficking" charges. Neither of those things are wrong, and if he actually committed aggression or theft, why are those things not the crimes he is being charged with? Because the law is a sham.

*

Donate?

Elderly woman told she has no authority over her own life or property

Elderly woman told she has no authority over her own life or property

Albuquerque "authorities" have violated another person's property rights- and more. With the help of neighbors who did the wrong thing, probably because it was easy.

The neighbors called the city complaining about "the house". That involved the authorities who decided it was within their authority to tell the woman she couldn't let her adult sons live with her. So, while checking up to make sure their edicts had been obeyed, LEOs found "drugs" in the home and arrested two of the sons.

Of course, the city claims it has the woman's best interests at heart. Conditions in the home were "terrible". "It's not safe for her," the spokescritter benevolently proclaims. And they also have the common good in mind with their acts of aggression, coercion, and theft, saying "It's not safe for any visitors, and it's certainly not safe for the neighborhood."

Shame on the city and shame on the bad neighbors who instead of seeking to help, bludgeoned this elderly woman with The State.

*

Donate?

"Theft by any other name" video

I thought I'd try my hand at something a little different. What do you think?
*
Donate?