Poll contains a surprise

I was surprised that the results of this poll, which I found on the local paper's website, were so evenly split. As evenly as it is possible to split them, in fact. I was glad the spare point went to the only reasonable response.

I would interpret this poll (related to this case) to show that of those who responded, the top bar represents those who would fit the "conservative" profile; the middle bar would be those who (in this case, at least) favor a more libertarian approach; while the bottom bar are those I would consider "progressives".

Of course, the case could be made to swap the top and bottom.

The main reason I consider the bottom bar to represent those of leftward inclinations is that they are the ones who advocate changing things such as drug "laws" to legalize marijuana use rather than simply recognizing that a bad "law" carries no authority.

On the other hand, "the right" also works to change gun "laws" that happen to bother them... so maybe there is (once again) no real difference between "left" and "right"; it's always about authoritarian or libertarian after all.

Hair!

Sometimes I wonder if I would be taken more seriously if I looked more "conventional". Very often the only comments those who disagree with me can come up with are based upon my appearance- "You look so unkept..." - "Get a haircut Kent..." etc.

So, I should get a nice jackboot mohawk / idiot rug like so many LEOs do nowdays so people would "respect" me?

No thanks. If that's what it takes to be taken seriously, I'll pass.

My thought is that maybe if some of those people would grow some hair it might protect their brain from radiation damage- or whatever is causing their inability to think.

(This isn't directed at anyone who has short hair and doesn't demand that the entire world adopt their own personal style. It's only directed at the idiots who think there is something noble or superior in having short hair.)

Principles cannot be compromised

Principles cannot be compromised

It is often necessary to compromise face-to-face, but to compromise when stating principles means you have none.

Something I read a few days ago had someone referring to themselves as "ideologically extreme, behaviorally moderate". I liked that phrase.

I am serious about libertarianism. I also know that as long as someone is not attacking anyone, either physically or economically, no one has the right to try to force them to stop whatever they are doing. In that case there is always room for compromise if the other person will agree to keep their hands off your body, your property, and your life, both personally and legislatively, as long as you are not harming any innocent person. Remember that being offended is NOT the same as being harmed since harm must involve actual physical or economic damage.

Unfortunately, this proves to be difficult when people believe they have the right or the authority to control the non-aggressive, consensual behavior of those around them. But there is no such right and the authority is never real.

That is why compromise seems so difficult when a libertarian is trying to deal with a person who believes it is right to use force against someone who is not using force or stealing. All the "compromise" that such a person proposes is about how much the liberty of the other will be violated. That is not "compromise", it is losing ground that can't be regained; it is standing aside while someone harms you.

Principles can not be compromised or they are not principles. Principles are a line in the sand. Whether you defend them or not is up to you, but they don't shift around like shadows. If I am laying out the principles of libertarianism, I do no service to anyone by being wishy-washy or a "nerf libertarian". Compromise can come when you decide whether or not to defend that particular principle from this specific violator at this exact moment. Your choice may affect your life, but it doesn't change the facts of the principles one iota.

*

Donate?

My daughter's unfortunate desire

We live across the street from an elementary "public school" playground.

My 3 1/2 year-old daughter sees the kids playing at recess and longs to join them. She begs to go to school.

When I try to tell her the truth about school, her mother and my parents think I am trying to brainwash her. I'm simply telling her that what she sees the kids enjoying (and most of them are seemingly enjoying themselves during recess, though some are being victimized and bullied) is NOT school. It is the joy of a brief break from the tedium that is "school".

I tell her that school is all about sitting still and being quiet and being talked (down) to. I haven't even gotten into the worst of it. The part about being trained like a Pavlovian dog to regulate your body to the ringing of bells - the part about being trained that The State is "how it's always been done, so it's the only option"- the part of being trained to submit to "authority" even when the demands are stupid and/or harmful.

She doesn't believe me. I'm not the kind of person to forbid her from trying school if that is what she really wants, but I know once in the system, it would be much harder to drop off the radar. I'd probably be forced to move and leave no forwarding address.

Repeating myself

Human Being-

I am a human being, and a Homo sapiens, and a man, and a "naked ape", and a person. These are ways of just saying the same thing with different words. That describes the species I am; what my DNA sequence would indicate to anyone checking it. To a large extent the information in those labels will also describe the conditions needed for my continued survival, which individuals I would be able to reproduce with (and what offspring would result), my size range, and in a general way, my appearance. It would also eliminate the possibility of me being a fish, even if I claimed to be one. Even if I spent a lot of time swimming. And, conversely, it provides a standard to compare others' claims. If a garden slug is claiming to be human in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, it is easy to see the claims are not true, using a variety of tests and observations. A claim doesn't make a thing true.

Libertarian-

I am also a libertarian, and an anarchist, and a sovereign individual, and a voluntaryist. These are also just ways of saying the exact same thing with different words. This description shows I value the rights and liberty of each individual. It shows I recognize I have no right to initiate force. It shows I have no room for double standards for those who reserve the authority to initiate force or theft/fraud on innocent individuals. If someone claims one of these descriptive labels, but does not fit the description, then it is simple to see the lie. If you promote a "government solution" to anything, or if you are a bomb-throwing destroyer of innocent bystanders or their property, you are NOT any of the above. You are an authoritarian thug even if you claim otherwise.

The reason I don't rely on historical quotes

In my latest CNJ column, the editor added some quotes by historical founding fathers. I agree with the quotes, but not with adding them to the column (he did ask me first, though). And here's why.

For any quote you can find by a historical figure that illustrates your point, someone will ALWAYS claim that the quote was never really said by that person. Or that he was misquoted. It happens every time.

Another hitch is that even if the quote is great, and the attribution is beyond reproach, you will often have other people point out that even if the person said what you quoted, they also said things in direct opposition to that point.

People are not perfect, and while they may have said one good quote that respects liberty for all, they almost all have (or had) some very bad habits or opinions somewhere concerning some subject. Blind spots and inconsistencies are everywhere. The quoted person may have stood up for the right of everyone to own and to carry weapons everywhere they go, yet in the next breath asserted that it was OK for The State to collect "taxes" or for people to own slaves.

If I'm going to be disputed or faulted, I would rather be the target, rather than someone I can't talk to in order to get clarification. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading the good quotes; I do!

I don't believe in "terrorists"

I don't believe in terrorists. Not as generally thought of, anyway.

There are only people who initiate force, and everyone else.

The only people who initiate force who would possibly cause terror in me are those I can't adequately resist.

The only ones I would ever feel inadequate against are those who have State permission to initiate force against me. The inadequacy comes from my recognition that they have a lot more money than me (since they can steal or print "money" without constraint), and with that money can buy lots of fancy hardware and the cooperation and "loyalty" of a lot of principle-impaired people to keep sending after me.

So, I suppose that to me, the only possible "terrorist" would be a State employee. IF that employee were able to instill terror in me, which is unlikely.

On principles, there can be no compromise

A few days ago, I had yet another conversation with my newspaper editor over the content of my columns. I get along pretty well with the editor and I think he has a difficult job trying to work out differences between me and the publisher. (I am sorely tempted to quit the newspaper writing gig due to the frustration and the dread that comes with each week's submission, but that's a different subject.)

Anyway, speaking of why my columns are so hard to get past the publisher led to this exchange:

The editor said something to the effect of "The difficulty is that you are serious about libertarianism. You don't compromise."

To which I responded something like "Face to face I am very willing to compromise. As long as someone isn't attacking me, there is usually some way to compromise. Principles are not the place I can compromise."

Of course, my whole answer was a lot longer-winded.

As a libertarian, I compromise a lot, in day-to-day life with people I deal with. It's fairly easy to do as long as others keep their hands off my life.

Yet, the very nature of a statist makes it almost impossible for them to keep their "hands", in the form of "laws", to themselves. That is why compromise seems so difficult when a libertarian is trying to deal with a statist. All the "compromise" that the statist proposes is about how much the statist will be violating the libertarian. That is not "compromise", that is losing ground that can't be regained.

Principles can not be compromised or they are not principles. They are a line in the sand. Whether you defend them or not is up to you, but they don't shift around. If I am laying out the principles of libertarianism, I do no one any service by being wishy-washy or a "nerf libertarian". Compromise can come when you decide whether or not to defend that particular principle from this particular violator at this exact moment. Your choice doesn't change the facts of the principles one iota.

Laws also deserve to be scrutinized

Laws also deserve to be scrutinized

(This one was totally neutered and declawed to make it acceptable to the publisher. I offer the original, offensive version here.)

Just about everyone wants justice. One of the most powerful tools you and I have available to keep government honest is the jury. The trick is you can't count on the government informing you of your power; you must usually hear of this from a libertarian activist instead.

Did you realize that when you are serving on a jury, it is your duty to not only judge the facts of the case (in other words, to decide if the accused person actually did what they are accused of), but also whether the law the person is accused of violating is a good law or not? It is true.

Most people are not aware of this fact, and most judges today will actually tell jurors they are not allowed to decide whether the law is a good law or not. However, this has been the cornerstone at the foundation of the legal system which America inherited, for close to a thousand years, whether judges like it or not. This practice is called "jury nullification" and is still completely legal (and right) in spite of what judges may claim.

A jury which is tricked into giving up this power is not a real jury; it is just there to rubber-stamp the government's agenda.

The other way the justice system can be used to strengthen liberty is to realize when a case does not belong in the justice system at all, and act accordingly if you are on the jury.

Today most people think of a "crime" as something that the government has seen fit to forbid and punish through "laws". However, a real crime must include an intent to cause harm. Accidents can not be crimes and do not belong in the justice system.

Suppose a person is accused of having an accident that injures an innocent person; that accusation leads to a criminal trial, and you are chosen to sit on the jury. In a case such as this, you need to carefully consider whether any crime has really occurred- whether there was an intent to harm- before considering anything else.

This doesn't mean that accidents are without costs. If you cause harm you owe restitution. Any real system of justice must be centered on the concept of restitution to the victim or their survivors.

However, the government is not the victim and has no horse in the race. It shouldn't even be involved in the arbitration at all. Imprisonment doesn't provide restitution, and as implemented now only costs taxpayers the huge overhead of maintaining prisoners.

The same goes for "fines". They are not paid to the victim, but to the government which was not harmed. They are simply another tax.

In order for real justice to be served, there needs to be a separation of court and State. Until then, use the tools you have been given to advance real justice and liberty for all.

*
Donate?

Seat belts

One of the Meddling-Nanny excuses used to justify controlling every breath we take is the seat belt. It is claimed that people must be forced to wear a seat belt, if not "for their own good", at least so they don't get injured in a wreck and become a burden on society.

Poppycock.

No one can be "a burden on society" without socialism. To use the flaws of socialism to justify tyranny is disgusting. Yet, it happens a lot since, as it has been noticed, government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

I prefer to wear a seat belt. I have heard all the pros and cons and I made my own decision. I'm sure you have done the same.

Some people are afraid of being trapped in a burning wreck by their seat belt, so they don't want to wear one. That is their business and not mine. I always carry a few knives in various places so if I am conscious I won't be trapped by a seat belt in case of an accident. And if I'm not conscious, then the seat belt probably won't be the biggest danger anyway.

Blogs to read

I've found a couple of blogs that I have been reading recently, but hadn't mentioned. I will correct that now.

One is The Zero Government Blog from our friend, and TOLFA founder, Jim Davies.

The other is one I have linked to several times for certain issues, Voluntary Boundaries.

Both deserve your attention.

"Kent's Observation" (on "Godwin's Law")

Anytime "Hitler" or "Nazis" are mentioned, or even when a comparison is just hinted at, Godwin's Law will be brought up, often incorrectly, no matter how valid the comparison may be.

The mantra "Never forget" has been replace by "Never notice real similarities or Godwin's Law will be brought up in an attempt to stop the debate".

When pointing out that "I was just following orders", "I was just doing my job", "I just enforce the laws, I don't make them", or similar authoritarian excuses are the exact same ones used by Nazis on trial at Nuremberg, there is no comparison more applicable or valid. Those who will enforce a counterfeit "law" against their neighbor, whether it sends the person to a death camp or to a city jail (or even "just" subjects them to a "fine"), is not different from a Nazi in kind, but only in degree. These are the very comparisons that Godwin's Law attempts to protect by weeding out the exaggerated hysteria. People who prefer carnations over roses are not Nazis; people who will kill a person over possession of some dried leaves or other consensual behavior could accurately be compared to one.

Godwin NEVER claimed that the comparison was always inappropriate, just that it was inevitable it would crop up somewhere eventually if an online discussion went on long enough, and that making the comparison in trivial matters diluted the impact of the times the comparison was accurate. He also never claimed that mentioning Hitler or Nazis made a person automatically lose the debate. These are wishful-thinking add-ons by people who are uncomfortable with the truth. Other people may fall into this trap if they don't realize what's happening.

Freedom of choice

Why not choose the best from among the available options?

I have heard people claim that I must want to "go back" to some earlier time, just because I dislike The State. That's silly. I think now is the best time to be alive- so far- except for the presence of the ubiquitous 21st Century Global Police State. And I refuse to let the tools of that State poop on my picnic.

Yes, there are things from the past that I'd prefer, just as there are things of today that I prefer. I'll bet there are even more things from the future that I'd like even more. We'd probably have a lot of those things available right now were it not for the interference of The State.

Many days I'd like to live as a caveman, with stone tools and animal skins. But, I like my cell phone, too. I like modern medicine- at least in theory. I like the variety of food I can choose from. So, yes, I would have no problem wearing animal skins with a cell phone hanging at my waist in a leather pouch, while squatting in a cave eating a taco salad, and drinking a Dr Pepper from a tin cup. And taking ibuprofen for a headache if I want to. A historical mishmash. (Customers used to be amused that I'd be wearing full mountainman clothing, with a cordless phone hanging on my belt beside my flintlock pistol and bowie knife, while I worked at the pet shop.) This isn't really contradictory- It's just me.

I have millions of years of humanish existence I can mine for things I like. I think it's odd to limit myself to only those things that are currently popular. Why only wear things that everyone else wears? Why use cell phones, but shun the occasional stone tool? Why would I like technology when it comes to guns, but dislike computers? For fire, I normally use a lighter, but am glad I know how to make fire with the bowdrill, or flint and steel. It's all human technology; it is my heritage and I will use what I want, when I need it.

The only reasons I can think of to be uncomfortable with modern technology are reasons that have nothing to do with the technology, but only with abuses The State imposes upon the users of certain technology.

I don't wish to be tracked or numbered, but I find the cell phone (as an example) to be incredibly liberating. No longer does a person feel the need to stay inside to be near a phone if expecting a call. You still have the choice to answer or not if a call comes in. Isn't liberty great?

*

Donate?

Voting: my latest thoughts

A thread on the Facebook "The Libertarian Enterprise" page has brought up the differing opinions on voting once again. As my own views have evolved though the years I thought I'd lay out my current views on the matter.

Voting doesn't make me happy. It gives me no sense of accomplishment or satisfaction. Yes, I realize that is probably because I value liberty and "the majority" of voters do not. And election results have always reflected that truth whether I was voting or not.

I refuse to ask The State for permission to have liberty. If I debase myself enough to ask for it, I don't deserve it. Every person will probably always have some jerk in his or her life who will try to control them. Yes, that will still be the case even if you vote away The State and eat every politician and bureaucrat at a world-wide barbecue. Some people are just authoritarian thugs and nothing will ever change that. You might as well deal with them the best you can and live as free as you can in spite of them. Now!

I suppose if voting makes you happy, and keeps you thinking about, and hungry for, liberty, it might be useful for you. Just as using "drugs" makes some people happy, so it is with voting. As long as you only vote to eliminate or reduce government power, and never vote for "the lesser (or greater) of two evils", then I suppose your voting is fairly harmless.

If a person has to go through the "voting stage" before they are ready to go deeper into advocating liberty, then that might be a good thing too. Once they reach that stage, if they still get joy out of casting a vote, as in the example above, then that is their choice.

But, you should recognize that the "system" is rigged. Totally and completely. You can't "vote yourself (or the country) free". It can't happen. As they say, if voting could change anything, it would be illegal. Voting lends an undeserved air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system, and gives the illusion of consent.

I suppose if for some reason the thought of voting made me happy again someday, I'd probably do it again (within the bounds I laid out above). I won't say it couldn't happen, but I think it's unlikely. But that is why I don't get too critical of those who want to vote, as long as they don't get too critical of my choice.

I still think it better to run for office to siphon off some voters from the bad guys, than to actually vote.

Added: What about "voting in self-defense"?

Egypt- don't stop halfway!

Getting rid of Mubarak is good for Egypt, but just watch as they make the same old mistake yet again, still expecting different results.

The revolution hasn't succeeded yet; they are still accepting a State of some sort, with someone "in charge", as inevitable. Probably without even questioning that bizarre concept.

You can't get rid of a tyrant and replace him with someone else and think you're free. Well, obviously you can, but you've accomplished nothing if you do. Don't stop before the job is done!

Clovis zoo should be private effort

Clovis zoo should be private effort

Like many people in the area I was saddened by the news of Jay the giraffe's unfortunate death. I like Clovis' zoo and the people who work there, while still fully understanding that zoos should be private affairs and not government-run entities.

Most of the negative comments I have read concerning the death were related to the perception that money had been wasted by the city on a giraffe. This cuts to the heart of why government has no business being involved in things of this nature (among others).

It doesn't bother me if a local restaurant spends its profits on a diamond and ruby chandelier to hang above the dining room. After all, I didn't pay for it unless I choose to eat there. The same goes for my neighbor: as long as I am not subsidizing his lifestyle it doesn't hurt me if he drives a Lamborghini. I might think money is being wasted in both examples, but I have no say in how they spend what is theirs to spend; nor should I.

However, anytime you get a government involved you end up forcing people to pay for things they would rather not. Be it giraffes or police or aircraft carriers or a local politician's mistresses. This causes understandable hostility.

I have no problem paying for what I use, including the zoo. However, I believe that people who don't want to subsidize my recreational activities should not be forced to do so. It's that "crazy libertarian" nature in me raising its head again. I could go to a privately-run zoo and feel good knowing that the voluntarily-collected money that could be used for animal care is not being used for bureaucracy instead, and secure in the knowledge that no one is losing their home or business in order to shell out to the local government in order to finance the zoo.

A privately-run zoo could buy all the giraffes it wants and it would be no one's business other than the owner's. It could even receive donations to finance special exhibits just like government-run zoos often do. It could do what it thinks is best for its animals and customers without running the political gauntlet for every decision and without people feeling their money had been wasted. It also wouldn't be used as a "community service" sentence for people who crossed swords with often-arbitrary government rules. Maybe I could even get a job at a private zoo as "designated rat shooter".

De-politicize the zoo; de-politicize life.

Added: It turns out Jay impregnated (that's "knocked-up" to those who didn't progress beyond their government school education) the female giraffe before he died, so I guess the zoo still got a second giraffe out of the deal- about a year later.

Non-solutions

Some problems can't be solved. Don't like that? Tough. Suck it up and move on.

For every problem that can be solved, there is an actual, real, liberty-respecting solution.

If a "solution" violates anyone's individual rights and liberty, then it is not a solution at all, but just another problem. It's like claiming that scalping is a solution to dandruff.

*

Speaking of solving problems, you could buy my book "Problem? Solved!" (or any of my other books) and help me avoid the impending financial doom that seems to be once again bearing down on me. Or you could just donate to help out. But you are not obligated to do so, of course.

Sick societies

The only society in which a person could get away with barbarous acts such as killing an "infidel" who doesn't have the same religious notions as you, or kicking in someone's door over possession of a plant, or prohibition of self defense and the proper tools to carry it out, is a society infected by the cancerous idea of government.

If you do things like any of the above on your own, unsupported by The State, you would rightly be considered a bad guy. Being backed by "The Law" changes nothing, other than making your sociopathic behavior safer for you to commit. For the moment, anyway.

No healthy society would ever even consider such disgusting acts as "normal" or "proper". And I can't see how any person who supports any such acts could ever be considered a "good" person.

*

Donate?

The problem with voting- part 982

One problem with voting is that you can't vote for half a politician. And if you try to create a half politician that you can agree with, you can be punished by enforcers for all sorts of "crimes" related to your unauthorized ninja surgery.

With most other choices in life you can choose the good stuff and reject the bad. In an order of french fries you can eat the good ones and toss the one that looks like it might just be a fried rat's tail. When out with your best friend, you can join him in doing the things you like, but you can let him go on his own way if he wants to whack hornet nests with a tennis racket while wearing only underwear.

The nature of politics is that when you vote for a politician based on his stance on an issue that you agree with, you can also be getting a lot of really bad things in the same package. He might claim to respect the Second Amendment, but he might also support "border security", the War on (some) Drugs, or other Big Government nonsense. You may also find out that his "support" for the issue that got him your vote is little more than an illusion. Maybe he says he supports the Second Amendment, but fills that support with so many holes of "but" ("but holes"?) that his support is meaningless. This is usually the case.

Anytime a politician is elected, even if you didn't vote for him or anyone else, you may be forced by "law" to eat the fried rat's tail while being stung by the hornets if that is what he decides he wants you to do "for the good of society".

Even if you could vote for a politician who had zero insane notions, which is highly unlikely, he may still advocate violating the individual rights of someone else in a way you don't notice or care about. It isn't right for your vote to give him this ability.

Be right. Don't vote.

*

Donate?

Accept the truth of the "crazy stuff"

I read where Scott Adams of "Dilbert" was claiming to be "Libertarian, but without the crazy stuff".

Of course what that really means is that he claims to be a libertarian without consistency. That's sad.

It is easy to agree that The State, and specifically the US Federal government, has gotten too big, too powerful, and too corrupt. It seems to be a little harder to admit that this is where externally-imposed government will always, inevitably lead.

Someone sent me a couple of links a while ago that are incredibly good reading, and are wonderful tools for stripping away those inconsistencies. Both are a little long, but I highly recommend you check them out.

The Myth of the Rule of Law

The obviousness of Anarchy

*

Donate?

Arguing with 'The State's' True Believers

The more I experience the truth of liberty- whether you call it anarchism, voluntaryism, libertarianism, sovereign individualism, or whatever- the less need I feel to justify it to others.

It's like wasting my time trying to get people to see that cows don't have 6 legs (generally) while they keep insisting that, yes, they do. Whatever.

The truth is there for anyone to see if they want to look. It doesn't go away because they keep chanting that it doesn't exist. It doesn't care what they believe. It doesn't care what they want or "need" to be true. It just is what it is.

So, yes, I keep inserting my two cents (real copper) where and when I feel inspired to do so, but it really doesn't matter that much to me anymore whether anyone believes me or not.

Property codes violation of rights

Property codes violation of rights

One man's blight is another man's freedom. Liberty is sometimes messy, but it is still preferable to, and the ethical opposite of, "neat and orderly" socialism.

A big aspect of socialism is placing the supposed benefit to society above the inalienable rights of the individual. This means that all socialism has the myth of "the common good" or "the general welfare" at its heart, and nothing but socialism can come from this myth. Socialism is wrong, even when you approve of it, can come up with reasonable-sounding justifications for it, and even if you benefit from it.

One of the first casualties of socialism is the right to use your private property as you see fit without first getting approval of others.

I oppose, without reservation, all calls for "property codes" to be used as a tool against "blight". That's socialist-speak for "Violating your property rights on behalf of The Majority using the threat of force". It is wrong even when it has been made "legal".

I understand that some people get offended when a neighbor has an unkempt lawn or a junky car in their yard. Yet, what another person does with their own property, even to the point of destroying it, is no one else's business as long as no one else or their property is being harmed- and being offended doesn't qualify as harm. Otherwise their property is none of your business, no matter what.

If a neighbor's junk is winding up on your property, because of breezy conditions or intentional tossing, or if it is causing you harm through attracted vermin or mosquito breeding, you have the right to take action to solve that particular problem or seek restitution. If there is a credible danger that a person's junk may catch fire and endanger your property you have the right to seek arbitration and to hold the other property owner accountable in case of damage. Reality indicates that lack of "blight" is no guarantee that no harm will ever come from a neighbor's property.

In a free society, where fire fighting would be a true free market enterprise, fire fighting companies could refuse to contract with those whose property was an unreasonable fire risk, or could charge higher rates to offset the higher risk. In a government monopoly, as long as the taxation is being paid, the fire department can not ethically discriminate. This encourages irresponsible behavior, which is then discouraged through property rights-violating "laws". It's an unhealthy system..

I realize many people are concerned that a neighbor's property could impact the value of their own property. If this is a concern you have the right to live in a neighborhood in which all the residents have voluntarily, and UNANIMOUSLY, agreed to certain conditions and restrictions. You and your other neighbors do not have the right to impose these restrictions on a neighbor who doesn't agree to them.

I don't like "blight" any more than anyone else, but I repudiate this violation of rights. Don't enforce the "codes" against my neighbors on my behalf.

(As originally written; not as published. Yes, this is similar to other things I have written, but I felt it was "safe", considering...)

*

Donate?

Making outlandish claims with no evidence to back them up

I was just reading a comment on The Dilbert Blog where a person made the claim "Government has a significant role to play in a modern, market based economy. Those that think otherwise are badly mistaken."

Yeah, I see nonsense like this all the time, yet the person making the claim never backs it up with anything real. We are supposed to bow to their wisdom and just accept the claim as if it is a given, handed down from above.

You can have a "market", or you can have government playing a "significant role". You can not have both no matter what you believe, and no matter how much time you have spent as a priest for The State in its indoctrination camps.

Added: Yeah, it's "just" The Dilbert Blog, but if any of you out there care to drop by and give me a hand I'd appreciate it.

"Joint Land Use Resolution"

One topic that keeps showing up in the Clovis news, and that I know better than to try to write about in the Clovis paper, is the air force's "Joint Land Use Resolution" that it keeps seeking to impose on local property owners.

I have no problem with two people working out a mutually-voluntary agreement so they can both use real estate they both own- like a time share arrangement.

But this "joint land use" topic that keeps coming up is no different than me driving out to some place I think looks like a useful area (useful to me) and telling the property owners that we are going to work out an arrangement wherein I will shoot my deer rifle across their land and over their homes, and they must accommodate me. They will not be allowed to interfere nor build anything new that sticks up that I might hit. Maybe I'll even get an airplane and buzz their property. What's the difference?

This is just another bit of proof that the US military is a force for evil, not a protector of liberty.

*

Donate?

Human Failings and Libertarians

We are all human and have all-too-human failings and shortcomings. However, when considering libertarians, those failings fall short of our principles.

There is no room for revenge, or nationalism, or aggression, or racism, or thievery in libertarianism. You can still be a libertarian and harbor those things deep inside, of course, but those things are not libertarian. And if you don't get rid of them, they may come out at the worst possible moment of weakness and cause you to act in ways that violate your foundational stated principles.

If that happens and you are not bothered by it, or don't recognize the inconsistency in it, you may not really be libertarian.

Mother Nature, Bring it on!

I hate to admit it, but I love a good crisis (or potential crisis). Not in the "never let a good crisis go to waste" way the thugs of the fe(de)ral government love a crisis, though. They love a crisis because it gives them an excuse to violate the liberty and the rights of others. They love the harm it does to others and the panic that it causes and the power they are able to grab in the wake of the crisis.

I love a crisis because it makes me feel more alive and challenges me in a way I find invigorating. The crisis can be a purely personal thing that doesn't even involve other people at all. I wish no damage on anyone. Well, no one who is innocent, anyway.

I was thinking about this tonight in relation to the huge winter storm that is supposedly bearing down on a big chunk of North America. Even though I am on the southern edge of the storm path and not expecting anything very crisis-like in this area it is fun to think about.

The thought of a big storm with impassible roads and power outages is very exciting for me. Mostly because I feel prepared to handle it, and have lived through similar things before with no problem. I even enjoy the slight "inconveniences". It's an adventure!

There is an exception, though. I hate financial crises. This is because I feel inadequate and unable to handle those. Money hears me coming and runs away. I guess it all depends on how well you are able to weather a particular storm as to whether it is a fearful thing or an adventure.

*

Donate or buy my books to help me through my ongoing financial crisis.

"Pro-life" people alienate me

I get really tired of running into "pro-life" people who refuse to discuss anything relating to liberty until the "question" of abortion is resolved the way they want it.

To balk at any move toward liberty simply because we can't agree on abortion is insane. Let's get rid of all the liberty-crushing counterfeit "laws" first, and then we can work out the details on abortion.

The "pro-lifers" won't even discuss anything without the ridiculous insistence that everything, all good and all evil, flows from- and revolves around- the issue of abortion.

I am against abortion, especially as a form of birth control, but am also against government getting involved. If that's the way the "pro-lifers" want it they might just make me change sides. They may just make me decide I must be for abortion if the alternative is to be on the same side, even philosophically, as people who are so ignorant and bullheaded.

OK, so I don't really base my principles on other people, but it really is very tiresome. Work with me to get The State out of all areas of our lives and then we can settle the rest. OK?

Hosni Mubarack Obama

Has anyone else noticed the little game that can be played with the names of Egypt's and America's tyrants? Hosni Mubarak + Barack Obama = Hosni Mubarack Obama.

If I were superstitious I might think there's a message there. Maybe Obama is seeing his own near future in the current troubles of his soul mate in Egypt. Is one tyrant really that different from another tyrant? Should we pay attention to Mubarak to see what may happen to Obama? Interesting times.

Heretics and nonbelievers

Most of the systematic torture in the world has been done to preserve superstition of one sort or another from being exposed as superstition.

Both of the Big Superstitions, religion and government, have shared in the guilt. Sure there have been cruel freelance torturers, but their offenses have been a drop in the bucket, barely even measurable, compared to the vast scale of the cruelty committed by goons trying to enforce adherence to the notions of The State or religion.

I think it is because a substantial percentage of people really, deep down, know better. They see through the scam, so obedience and the appearance of agreement must be enforced in both cases. Either through torture or the threat of torture.

Of course, in both cases there are also "True Believers" who will continue to believe what they want to believe no matter how overpowering the preponderance of evidence may be.

From these ranks come the ones who cheer on the torturers and try to prevent the truth from having an impact. These are the useful idiots.

There are also some "True Believers" who don't contribute to the evil, but too few of these actively oppose it. By their silence they betray humanity.

There are also a few, very few, who remain "True Believers" while supporting the right of others to disagree with their superstition, and who openly oppose inquisitions and torture. These are the good, though still deluded, "True Believers".

"My"

The word "my" can mean ownership, such as "my gun", "my clothes", or "my hair".

It can also mean a relationship, such as "my daughter", "my friend", or "my family". Maybe even "my shadow". This is why saying "my child" is not a claim of ownership over that child, but is an acknowledgement of the relationship I have with that child.

"Good"- the definition

To me "good" is anything that voluntarily helps someone who deserves to be helped. That would be what I consider "actively good".

It can also be anything that avoids harming those who do not deserve to be harmed, although many people would probably just think of this as an ethically neutral act. I think of this as being "passively good".

There is no obligation to be actively good, while there is an obligation to be at least passively good.

Teen crimestoppers in trouble

Teen crimestoppers in trouble

Never, ever call the police. And never speak to reporters.

A couple of Albuquerque teens are facing possible legal trouble after catching a thief and then beating him up.

Did they go too far? Maybe. It depends on what the truth is, and that may never be known. However, the burglar admitted being a burglar. And he was caught trespassing. The teens had every right to track him down to recover stolen property. If the thief then attacked them with a knife as they claim, they did the right thing by defending themselves.

In all cases I think it is right to give the benefit of the doubt to those who did not initiate force, fraud, or theft. The burglar committed theft, and doesn't deny it.

The cops do not wish to be seen as unnecessary. It is hard to justify living on stolen money, taken by coercion, if people can handle situations themselves. Yet, we can and they are unnecessary, and even promote crime by their very existence through the very mechanism displayed here. The "cooperate with the bad guys and just call the professionals" mantra. That is a recipe for defeatism.

It is a lesson the authorities hope we all learn. No thanks.

*
Donate?

The evil of "The Other" is sometimes real

I read a lot of warnings about thinking of "the other" as evil and yourself as good. It applies accurately to the silly "Democrat vs Republican" thing. It also applies very well to the "America vs AnyOtherCountry" thinking.

Where it utterly breaks down is in the "Liberty vs Tyranny" or the "Attacker vs Victim" realms.

There, any pretense that one choice is just as valid as the other is simply denial. The denial that the bad guy is bad serves no useful purpose for you. Tyranny, the systematic denial and violation of individual liberty in favor of power for The State, is completely wrong. It has no good side, even if it results in superficially "good" results. Liberty, even if it seems scary and dangerous, is the only ethical choice. Liberty is right, and tyranny is wrong. Completely, and without any equivocation.

If you are being attacked, your attacker is completely wrong (at that moment), while you are in the right if you choose to fight back with all you have. The one who "started it" bears all the blame if he is killed in the ensuing conflict. Yet, if you harm someone else during your defensive actions (perhaps the attacker's family member who wasn't involved), YOU become the attacker, subject to the laws of consequences.

Of course, this evil can be seen with your own eyes rather than being preached by the priests of The State to unquestioning believers who have witnessed nothing but what those priests have chosen to show (or stage) for their own ends. In other words, if someone has to convince you that someone is out to get you, with no evidence that can be seen, you would be better to laugh it off. And, conversely, if you see evil being committed don't buy the justifications that those supporters of the bad guys will try to bury you under.

You are being delusional if you think there is not real right and real wrong. If you are being attacked by a thug who wants to steal your property or rape and kill you, it is insane to think he might have a valid point of view as you stare down the barrel of his gun. He is the bad guy.

So many inconsistencies...

I've written about unlibertarian libertarians before. Several times, in fact. It still gets me how someone who is libertarian can be so blind in some areas.

I'm not saying they aren't libertarian, just that they hold on to inconsistencies that are not libertarian. How many inconsistencies can a person hold and still be what they claim to be? How many statist beliefs can a person support before others laugh at their insistence that they put liberty first?

In mild cases it would be like someone claiming to be a Christian, but worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the first Tuesday of each month. (Substitute the belief systems of your choice.)

In the worst cases it would be like someone claiming to be Christian, but instead worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster all the time, with occasional nods to the God they claim to worship- as long as it's convenient and doesn't get in the way of their normal worshiping routine or threaten their belief in FSM.

It is certainly bewildering.

*

Donate?

Accidents are not crimes

The indictment of Clovis police officer Stephen Gallegos on vehicular homicide charges is a good first step toward giving the appearance of fairness. All we should demand is that there be no double standards and that we are all equals "under the law" regardless of our employer. This indictment serves the purpose adequately.

Now, how to get justice? Surprisingly, or perhaps not, were I seated on the jury that will be asked to determine his fate, I would have to return a "not guilty" verdict. It's simply the right thing to do. Accidents are not crimes and are not within the legitimate realm of the current justice system. For a real crime to exist there must have been an intent to cause harm to another person or their property. Officer Gallegos is not alleged by anyone to have intended to harm the women he collided with.

On the other hand I do think Gallegos owes restitution to the dead woman's family, and to the injured survivor of the accident. The core of any legitimate justice system must be restitution. Intentional or not, harm was caused, and this incurs a debt. The details of the restitution should be between the victims and Gallegos, and no one else. This should be a private matter that is none of my business and none of yours unless you were involved.

Of course, in the current broken incarnation of a justice system, fines and imprisonment are the most popular recourse. Imprisonment doesn't often serve the cause of justice. It can not return the dead to life, nor heal the injured, nor even repay a financial wrong. However, if that were the only restitution the victims would accept, then they should work out the details of who will pay for his imprisonment. The most fair solution in that case would be for Gallegos to pay for his own upkeep, perhaps with help from his family, friends, and supporters. To make "the taxpayers" foot the bill is not justice. Two wrongs never make a right.

The same goes for the practice of levying a fine. The State (or any political subdivisions thereof) are not the victim here, and are owed nothing. Fines are simply another "tax" that goes to feed the beast without helping those who have been injured. Most of the time when fines are collected there was never any harm to anyone anyway, but merely the violation of some counterfeit substitute for a law that attempts to regulate something other than aggression or theft. Once again, this has no relation to real justice.

I can only hope any jury that is seated in Officer Gallegos' case, or any other case, keeps these things in mind while deliberating, and also remembers their historical duty and obligation to judge not only the facts of the case, but the legitimacy of the "law" that is being used against the defendant, regardless of the instructions of the court. Doing so would set Stephen Gallegos free. (www.fija.org is an excellent resource for jury education.)

*
This was to be my weekly Clovis News Journal column, but was rejected due to it being seen as an attempt to influence potential jurors in a local case. So there will be no CNJ column from me this week as the deadline had already passed when I was informed of the decision. What this means for me is that I am going to be short 25% of my pay this month. Therefore if anyone feels inclined to help me make up the shortfall this month, I would be grateful. Donate?

Is a free society unworkable?

Discuss the benefits of trying liberty rather than statism as the basis of a society* and you will hear many people drone on and on about how it won't work. One common example is the "Somalia blah blah blah" retort. As if that has any bearing on what a free society would be.

When liberty is given a real shot we can then discuss the results.

Even if anarchy or an other wise free society is "unworkable", that doesn't mean the statist alternative is right. Statism is also unworkable, as has been shown amply throughout recorded history. To deny that statism results in calamity is just silly. Plus, based as statism always is (by definition) on theft and coercion, it is wrong.

Given the choice, I would rather live in a failed society based upon liberty rather than an equally failed society based upon authoritarianism. Liberty is right, at least.

If liberty also fails to produce a workable society, then the obvious conclusion is that society itself is the problem. Maybe society* is a false concept and can never be truly workable.

*I am using the term "society" as short-hand for the interactions of all people who actually deal with one another in some way, not as some real, physical thing (like some collectivists seem to believe).

*

Donate?

Lever Action is back!

L. Neil Smith has announced that his book Lever Action is back!

If you are not familiar with the book, you should be.

I discovered Lever Action from a short, not entirely positive, review in the back of an NRA magazine soon after the book was first printed- probably in the winter or spring of 2002*. I had no money at the time, but I cut out the review and held on to it for a few months until I was able to order a copy. It changed my life. Seriously. I would not be writing this, or anything else, had I not read Lever Action.

I had never known there was anyone else out there who thought the way I did. I had thought there were "conservatives" and "liberals" and then there was me. I knew I didn't fit in either category, so I just considered myself a lone misfit. Lever Action was the first realization that other people did think the way I did. It brought me from being an aberration to being a libertarian. Or at least gave me the realization that there was a name for my particular ideology. For that sense of belonging I am forever grateful. Thanks again El Neil.

*If you have a copy of that review, please let me know. I kept my copy for a long time, but somewhere in all the moves, homelessness, storage units, and etc. it was misplaced. L. Neil has expressed an interest in seeing that review.

Compulsive liars telling the truth?

You know what, I personally DO believe the US government (through its official spokescritters) has lied about the JFK assassination, "9/11", Obama's citizenship, the ratification of the 16th Amendment, and various other liberty-destroying things. After all, when have you ever heard anything truthful come out of Washington DC (unless it was Ron Paul saying it)?

It would be a conspiracy theory beyond belief to believe that on those subjects, the official story is completely true, while the evidence of innumerable other lies, both big and small, is so completely overwhelming for everything else. Look at anything, anything at all, the government claims and you will uncover lies if you dig just a little. Compulsive liars simply don't tell the truth on "big stories" while routinely lying about mundane things. To think they do is ... well, it just isn't rational.

But, on the other hand, none of those things makes any difference in how I relate to people who claim it is OK for them to steal, kidnap, attack, and murder people who have initiated no force, theft, or deception. It is simply a tiny bit more evidence that The State is a force for harm in civilization. The State is inexcusable.

'Shall not be infringed' is The Law. Obey it.

'Shall not be infringed' is The Law. Obey it.

In the Albuquerque news I see that a bill to further depoliticize "concealed carry" has been introduced in the state legislature. While I support such an act, it is not necessary.

All that is necessary is that the state, and its enforcers, start obeying the law that already strictly limits what they can legally do, and ignoring the illegal counterfeit "laws" that violate those limits.

The stupidity of the anti-liberty side is copiously demonstrated by Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino, an Albuquerque Politicrat who is quoted as whining “The week after the Tucson Massacre, to have dreamed this up - really?” Yes, really. When tragedies happen, intelligent people see ways to make a repeat less likely to happen. Laws didn't stop Loughner, and apparently don't stop senators either. More guns in the hands of good people will go a long ways toward this goal. Get over your religious delusions to the contrary and deal with it Senator. Just because you fail to acknowledge the blood on your hands doesn't mean it's really nail polish.

"Shall not be infringed" is not just a popular quote with liberty-minded folk; it is The Law. Get used to it, politicians. It isn't negotiable. It is absolutely required of those who seek to be a part of government. You break that law and you lose any legitimacy you may have thought you had. In other words you become a common thug trying to violate the rights of your neighbors to empower or enrich yourself, rather than an official thug doing the same while still following the written laws that apply to your actions.

No new laws are needed. All "laws" that violate the higher law simply need to be repealed, abandoned, and/or ignored. And, if you somehow manage to get that higher law repealed, the basic human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon we choose, in any way we see fit- openly or concealed- everywhere we go without asking permission of anyone, will still exist- just as it has since before the dawn of history.

*
Donate?

Kent's Dictionary

Click on the word for the meaning I have when I use the word

Aggression

Anarchy

Arrest

Chaos

Coercion

Collective *

Common Good

Conspiracy

Credible Threat

Crime

Ethics

Evil

Fraud

Freedom

Good

Government

"Greater Good"

Greed *

Harm

Inflation

Innocent

Justice

LEO

Libertarian

Liberty

Money

Morality

"My"

Politicians / Thieves

Politics

"Puppetician"

Reavers

Rightful Liberty

Rights

Ruler

"Social Justice"

[The] State

Statists

Trespasser

.
* Things that were suggested I add, but which I don't necessarily think about enough to need to define otherwise.

"Basics of Liberty" video series

I thought I'd post an update with all my "Basics of Liberty" videos listed in one place.

Zero Aggression Principle

Covenant of Unanimous Consent

Bubble Theory of Property Rights

Understanding Right and Wrong

Love it or Leave it

Theft by Any Other Name

If/when I make more videos I will update this post and change the date to make it current.

"Decriminalize"?

I dislike the word "decriminalize"; often used in association with the efforts to end the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. It sounds like the speaker/writer is asking The State for a favor.

I think a couple of more accurate terms would apply. Such as "degovern" or "depoliticize". The point is that these things are none of the government's business under any circumstances.

Perhaps that is just my nature as an INTP showing itself.

Understanding Right and Wrong- the video

And on Youtube here: link

Are you in favor of a War on Bath Salts?

Attention supporters of The State:

I am tired of treating prohibitionists as though they are rational, reasonable people. They are not. They are childish control-freaks.

People want to get high. First it's stuff like marijuana and plant-based chemical intoxicants (including alcohol), along with religion. Then came the laboratory-created drugs. The State and its useful idiots (like the tweaked morons of MADD) were anxious to ban all of these that they personally feared or hated.

Then regular people found things you evil idiots of The State hadn't specifically banned- yet. Plants or other household products. Things that often were more harmful than the things you prohibitionists originally banned.

So now I am treated like a suspected criminal when I want to buy cold or allergy medicine. I do not freakin' care how someone else might use allergy medicine, nor what they might make out of its chemicals. I am adult enough to realize it is none of my business. I probably won't be purchasing any of their products, and I can defend myself against anyone who is impaired from using those substances. I do not need your "protection" and I don't appreciate your claim that I do. I am not as pathetic and weak as you are. I do not need "the law" or its enforcers.

Still delusional enough to think you can "win"? Now, people are using bath salts and plant foods to feel altered, and apparently causing real damage to themselves. Come on, you idiots who favor prohibition and the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs, can't you see the results of your insanity? If you do, and still don't care or think you are doing good... I can't say what consequences you should face. But I know, and so do you.

People want to alter their mental states, and no matter what you do, they will find a way to do it. Even if it means spinning around to get dizzy, which can still result in serious injury, they will find a way. Your prohibitions make no difference that is good, and are making all the difference in the world for all that is bad.

What would be enough for you pinheads? Screw the "slippery slope" arguments. That slope has been slipped down long ago. You are reaching the bottom of that slope now. How much is "too much" for you? I'm afraid nothing would be seen as "too far" for authoritarian control-freak monsters like those who still, in spite of all the evidence, support prohibition. You are already killing people. What's a little more death to people like you?

So, BUTT OUT! Stop! Feel free to educate or pontificate, but don't you dare pick up the gun of The State and start to legislate (or continue to enforce previous illegitimate legislation). Doing so makes YOU a bad guy. A thug who is a danger to liberty. You are a threat.

TSA loses big test case in ABQ- and important video Continue reading on Examiner.com: TSA loses big test case in ABQ- and important video

TSA loses big test case in ABQ- and important video

The man who was violated by the TSA in Albuquerque and "arrested" over his refusal to comply with illegitimate demands to show his ID has been cleared of wrongdoing in "the trial [which] has been postponed until 2011". As he should have been.

I hope every trial the TSA is involved in ends this way. And it will if justice is served. Remember to visit FIJA to know how you must act if called for jury duty.
*
On another, even more important note, you need to watch Guns and Weed. No, seriously- you NEED to watch it all, share it, and then watch it again.

*
Donate?

"Guns and Weed" movie.

Watch this, then send it to everyone you know and watch it again!

Public officials here to serve us

Public officials here to serve us

Would you feel comfortable if you had a few hired hands, and maybe a maid, a butler, and a gardener, who insisted that you had no right to know what they were doing while they worked for you, maybe even locked the doors behind them while around your valuables, yet still insisted on having the run of your property? Me neither. Then why do we allow those servants in government to get away with this same behavior?

When the Curry County Citizens Courthouse Committee decided, against the better judgement of some of its members, to conduct its business in secret it demonstrated exactly why its meetings must be open to observation. If you want to be making recommendations that will affect the lives of others or will determine how other people's money will be spent, you have no expectation of privacy in that role. Power without oversight is dangerous.

When you or I want to protect our privacy from government or other meddlesome busybodies, we are told we wouldn't object if we have nothing to hide. Yet, we are the masters. Being told this by our servants is nonsense.

I realize this committee isn't exactly "government", but it isn't exactly private individuals minding their own business either. Their actions will have governmental repercussions on their neighbors. Whether these repercussions are negative or positive depends on the principles of those involved and on whether the individuals are being subjected to manipulation or are coming to their own conclusions in their own way. How can this be known if the group dynamics are not watched.

Of all secrets, government secrets are the most dangerous and the least justifiable. Government secrets often kill. Exposing filthy secrets to the sterilizing light of the sun is the only healthy choice. Using "security" as an excuse for secrecy doesn't hold water.

As Ben Franklin noted, security and liberty have a strange relationship. If you spend your precious liberty to purchase some security, you will find that the security you thought you were buying was only a photoshopped simulation made to deceive you and get your money.

Protect yourself. Watch the people behind the curtain and don't let them do anything in secret. Even when it's a small, local matter.

(As written; not as published)

*

Donate?

Pleasant lunch with a lovely cannibal

I watched a TED video today that illustrated, for me, the divide between statists and rational people.

It was titled "Take the 'Other' to lunch". The point was to take someone to lunch who is from the opposite side of some issue. Of course, the speaker used the archaic and irreparably flawed "Right/Left" dichotomy, rather than reality, to illustrate her broken point.

She came from the "liberal" side and spoke of taking a "Tea Party" supporter to lunch to discuss their differences, with some ground rules meant to ensure civility. How nice for them, and what a lovely couple of authoritarian control freaks they must have made.

Yet, to me, the foundational problem is that while I could (and often do) talk to people, people either on "The Left" or on "The Right", who are opposed to everything I stand for, I am willing to leave them alone to go down their dead-end path, while they fully support killing me if I don't cooperate with their plans for me and for my children. That little undeniable fact tends to chill the friendly atmosphere somewhat.

They may support killing me over hemp, chemicals, guns, taxes, "patriotism", wars, seat belts, property code violations, licenses, permits, how I dress, schooling, what I write, words I say, sex, marriage, MP3s, pets, medications, money, religion, alcohol, private thoughts, weeds around my house, junk in my yard, light bulbs, photographs, velocity, numbers, milk, food, and lots more things than I can possibly list here... but the fact of the matter is that they do support killing me if I don't go along with what they demand of me.

If you think I am exaggerating when I say they are willing to kill me, remember that every single "law" is backed up, at some point, with the threat that if you do not submit, somewhere along the line, to those who are enforcing that "law", they will use deadly force to either capture and punish you, or kill you in the attempt. With every "law", no matter how seemingly trivial, the penalty for violating it is always death. Those who advocate and enforce "laws" are willing to kill you to see their will imposed on you.

How can you have a pleasant lunch with a monster?

*

Donate?

State's biggest theft ring seeks to expand

State's biggest theft ring seeks to expand

Governor Susana Martinez has exposed herself, yet again, as just another fascist politician. This time she wants to steal cars.

Of course, her intended victims are people who get no sympathy from the State-worshipers and control freaks that make up the majority of the voters, so she's treading safe territory.

Her dishonesty is exposed even more clearly by the fact that the loot would be used for enforcement rather than education. In other words, the money gained by this theft would pay for more thieves and more theft, rather than in reducing the pool of people to be stolen from.

She is happy to point out that such a theft ring has been operating "successfully" in Albuquerque for some time, and that it can be extended to the entire state. Plus, The State quite often steals cars (and other things) so this is really nothing but an expansion of the aggression and another illustration that The State is nothing but crime writ large.
*
Don't forget the thing that could stop abuses like this- the Bill of Rights penalty clause:

“Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify,
evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.” www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?p=501

*
Donate?

Get america'd

I got the following from a reader (when I was sick, and it got misplaced until now) and am glad to pass it along:

Hi Kent! I'm an indie recording artist and a committed anarcho-libertarian. I'd like to submit my latest album to your site for a review or mention on your site. My music is edgy, political prog rock. Its been described as a mix of Frank Zappa, Iron Maiden, XTC & Public Image Limited - with the bitter lyrical worldview of a Warren Zevon or Donald Fagen.

• Here is my latest album america'd, just released:
• Interactive Page (with streaming music, lyrics, etc.)
• My bio
• My press kit
• My first video Adult Children

Thank you and keep up the good work! Best,

-- ~Ben Sommer Edgy, political prog rock http://BenSommer.com

Hey, not exactly my style of music, but I did listen and read the lyrics. Check him out.

America's Sharia Law

One of the reasons I hear coming from "conservatives" for invading and occupying Islamic countries it so "they" won't take over America and force Sharia "law" on "us". You know, kind of an extension of the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" excuse.

True, I have no wish to live under such a brutal and primitive, and painfully stupid, system. But doesn't that mean we should deal with the mote in our own eye and get rid of our own version of Sharia "law" too? Otherwise we are just being hypocritical. Again.

Sharia law is no more obscene than most of the counterfeit laws in America. Kidnapping and murdering people over plants? Or chemicals? Or because they refuse to facilitate their own muggings? "Laws" based on what people claim their god wants?

If we refuse to put up with being ruled by Sharia "law", why don't we refuse the US equivalent and refuse to tolerate drug laws, gun laws, sex laws, tax laws, seatbelt laws, property codes, obscenity laws... and the list goes on almost infinitely to embrace any and all "laws" that attempt to control or regulate anything other than actual aggression or theft.

Sorry, but if your god approves of the War on (some) Drugs, or government sanctioned (or prohibited) marriage, or 99%+ of the rest of the things that "The Law" concerns itself with, your god is a monster. And if you continue to follow your god (whatever name you call him by) in spite of his monstrosity, then you are no better. And if you think it is a good idea to impose "laws" like this, and enforce them against your neighbors, you should be happy with Sharia "law". As for me, I'll take liberty and respect yours as well.