Spy on your kids and you create stealth kids

The question in the newspaper poll asked whether it is OK for parents to spy on their kids.

I am in the minority.

I voted "no".

If you spy on your kids, you are violating their trust. In that case expect them to hide things from you. I would if I suspected someone might be spying on me. It doesn't matter if I were doing something wrong or not. Wouldn't you? Why would anyone expect kids to act any differently?

Isn't this just the "PATRIOT [sic] Act" brought down to the level of a family? "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?" It isn't about "hiding" anything, it is about preserving your privacy. Anyone who thinks it's OK to spy on others is not anyone trustworthy.

If you excuse this behavior, it isn't much of a stretch to excuse molesting your kids "for their own safety" like the TSA does.

Price of gas got you down?

Just one possible solution to the coming economic crisis. I hope the video shows up.

Driving well or obeying "laws": choose

I can either drive well, or I can obey "traffic laws". Can't do both, and I doubt anyone else can either. Sorry, LEOs and copsuckers.

Driving is a fluid, chaotic situation where a person must adapt to changing circumstances quickly. If you also must only do so in ways that are approved by moronic legislators to be enforced by moronic LEOs, you are at a disadvantage.

I have long observed how driving ability deteriorates when a cop car (mobile oppression unit) is visible. Yes, people slow down, but they also stop paying attention to other drivers and how they are driving. You can watch your speedometer, or you can pay attention to the traffic and road conditions- you can't do both.

Traffic cops/highway patrol/highwaymen are a public nuisance and a danger to society. As such they need to be eliminated as "career choices" for the mentally-challenged drones who are inclined to choose that path.

Jealousy

I've probably mentioned it before, but I absolutely despise revenge and jealousy. I have been guilty of both of those in years past, though very rarely. I have also been the target of both.

In the case of jealousy, I consider it halfway toward abuse. The force has been initiated in the mind- and without great care, it will be initiated for real very soon.

If you are jealous, you need to end the relationship that you are jealous about. Actually, you should just accept that the relationship is already over if you are jealous.

If there is no real reason for your jealousy, then you are being an idiot who is driving away that which you are jealously guarding. You are addicted and it is hurting you, and probably will hurt the other person too.

And if there is a reason to be jealous it's probably because the relationship is not a good one, it is not fulfilling needs, and you both need to just get out. Jealousy is the sign it is over. It is the final bell. Don't be a moron and keep pretending the game is still on.

Is America a police state?

Well, America is living under a police state in the form of the US government (and it's state and local collaborators).

I was thinking about this question again after reading this post on "who's your nanny?"

One thing I think people need to understand, and that I posted in the comments is that, YES, we are living under a police state. It just hasn't put its entire police state infrastructure into operation yet. But it will.

Because, as I said there, a cobra is still a cobra even if it isn't biting anyone right now.

I just don't want to live....

...in a country where a non-aggressive, non-thieving, person has a greater chance of being kidnapped or murdered by tax parasites than by freelance vermin.

Where those who demand our "papers" or claim the "authority" to scan our naked bodies and search, or steal, our private property don't run a 50/50 or higher chance of being killed in self defense each day they go do their "job".

Where few people even realize those things are obscene as long as it doesn't impact their own family.

Does this put me in the same category as grumpy old men who are embittered over the decline of (their preferred version of) the "traditional family" or "morality"? Or as prudish old women who get the vapors if they see a bit of skin or a piercing on younger women? I wonder...

Choices in an elevator: Oprah or Sheen?

So, if you were forced to make a choice, who would you rather be trapped in an elevator with for several hours: Oprah or Charlie Sheen?

Not pretending this is an earth-shattering subject or anything, but...

I'd choose Charlie Sheen. I'm assuming I'd be armed and that I'd be able to subdue him if he went crazy and got violent. I also bet it would be interesting to talk to him during a situation like that.

Oprah, on the other hand... I don't think I could forgive her for subjecting us to Oprabama. Not that the other choice was any better, but to really promote one of those morons for prez? And to brainwash your devoted minions into voting for him... Plus, I think I'd be really tempted to violate the ZAP if she started getting all "empathic" on me. It's best not to tempt fate.

Authoritarianism is the lazy man's path

Why do the vast majority of people settle into an authoritarian comfort zone, whether "right" or "left"? I have a theory: People are lazy. Including me- I readily admit it.

People prefer the path of least resistance. Unless there is a fairly powerful incentive to do more work, they won't. That makes sense.

It takes more work to resist settling into the low-energy valley of authoritarianism. Maintaining a libertarian outlook takes constant effort at first; it is standing on the peak while the winds buffet you, trying to get you to fall. The extra effort is not really a huge amount once you start being aware, but it's enough that it is hard for people to take those first few steps along that path. It's just easier to go along with the false "right/left" authoritarian crowd.

So why would anyone ever choose to be libertarian? Because people also have a tendency to complicate their lives in some way. It might be through destructive relationships, or substance abuse, or by choosing liberty when it might be easier to follow the herd off the cliffs of statism. It is almost as if they save their energy in most areas of their lives by choosing the easy path so they will have the energy available for the extra effort it takes to pursue the one or two highwires they choose to walk. It sounds crazy, I know.

Libertarianism just happens to be one of my chosen "difficult paths", and the only one that is really worth the effort.

Japanese earthquake and tsunami

It's a terrible disaster. Anytime innocent people are hurt by natural disasters or human actions I empathize. I wish I could help, but I am broke and live on the opposite side of the planet. Even a hundred years ago people living right where I do wouldn't have even heard of a similar disaster for months, if ever. I'm assuming they would have known of the existence of Japan, but that might not even be a realistic assumption.

I know what some would say I could "do", but they would be wrong. Just remember, even one person actually doing something helpful beats a million people praying for those who are hurting. Beats a billion, too.

Speaking of dreams...

This has nothing to do with the other dream I mentioned, and was a couple of days previous to the other one.

A few days ago I dreamed I was lucid dreaming, but I wasn't really lucid dreaming at the time. That seems very confusing.

Dreams do come true, just not this one. Yet.

Yesterday morning I woke up from a dream in which I had a violent encounter with an enforcer. This is not the sort of dream I normally have, and it bothered me.

Then, yesterday afternoon, as I was simply driving well within reasonable and safe speeds, and not driving wildly at all, I was pulled over by a gang of enforcers employed by The State (New Mexico, in this instance). There were at least 5 cop cars (mobile tyranny units) hidden behind hedges in a church parking lot conducting some big revenue enhancement scam (in other words, a conspiracy to commit theft).

They were stopping car after car. It was a highwayman's dream come true. The roadway thieves of earlier generations probably never imagined that their kind would some day be operating so openly and without fear of justice.

Suddenly I wondered if my dream was about to come true.

I was informed I had been "speeding". Perhaps I was going slightly faster than the posted, and quite irrationally low, "speed limit". The enforcer ended up only giving me a warning (for what? driving safely?) because he said I seemed "nice". I suppose it's a good thing he couldn't read my mind. It is also probably good for me that I was in a borrowed car, rather than my own. My own "official paperwork" is somewhat confusing and contradictory.

It is getting to the point where I don't want to drive anywhere anymore. I won't risk going out late at night due to "sobriety checkpoints" and their routine violation of property rights and the fundamental human right to travel without being molested. Now I dread even needing to go out in the daytime. It's not worth a potentially deadly encounter-which is what they all are- with a LEO.

This will get worse before it gets better. Probably much, much worse, and even the "getting better" will undoubtedly be a very nasty process. All because some people didn't stop these things when they first began decades (or centuries) ago. Putting things like this off only make it worse later.

PS: If I were a member of a church that allowed this use of church property, I wouldn't be a member long, but I wouldn't quit before I told the "leaders" just how disgusting their police state enabling is.

More laws only create more chaos

More laws only create more chaos (As written; not as published!)

Robert LeFevre, one of the bright stars of the freedom movement who is now gone, but whose legacy remains, once said with regards to liberty that most people like freedom for themselves, but as soon as they feel a fear that someone else may try to take away their freedom, they become tempted to act like a tyrant first and try to take away the freedom of those they fear. In other words, in their fear they become the very thing they were afraid of and become the embodiment of the opposite of freedom. This is what people who really love freedom and liberty need to guard against in their own lives.

I would imagine that everyone is afraid of something. Many people live under the belief that if just the right "laws" are passed and enforced, life will be safe. They believe they will then be protected from those things they fear.

This has never been the case in the entire history of civilization, but hope springs eternal, and those who wish to rule the rest of us feed on this hope for safety.

A while back someone wrote "We wouldn't need so many laws if there weren't so many idiots." This is apparently a very common opinion, but it ignores reality and the law of unintended consequences.

"Laws" create "idiots" by protecting some people from the full consequences of their actions, and by giving a false sense of security to others; encouraging them to not take responsibility for their own life. The existence of these "idiots" and the tragedies that inevitably result are then used as justification for more "laws" which in turn create more "idiots" and more tragedies. It's the same old drama that has played out for thousands of years all over the globe.

What cost "safety"? You could reduce the frequency of hangnails by cutting off every finger to ever develop one, but most people would recognize the price as too high. You might make life "safer" by outlawing liberty, too, but that cost is immeasurably higher.

The reality is that bad things happen. You could criminalize every last shred of liberty and freedom, and even if you refused to admit this is a bad thing in itself, other bad things would still happen every single day without fail. No "laws" can change this. There is no Utopia. No one is able to guard you from harm better than yourself. Accept your responsibility, for it lies with no one else.

Why don't I just shut up?

Back when I was in high school, in a zoology class, the teacher was giving us a test on the classification of various pickled or otherwise prepared critters. We were allowed to look over the various dead things, along with their classifications, before the test.

I was glancing over the specimens without thinking too much about it until I came to a mislabeled fish. It was clearly a tiny flounder (a "bony fish") of the type commonly sold in pet stores, yet it was labeled as a "skate" and classified as "Class: Chondrichthyes" ("cartilaginous fish").

I pointed out this error to the teacher. To me, it was a critical mistake, on the level of claiming a dolphin is a fish or a bat is a bird. But the teacher just said, "for our purposes, it is a Chondrichthyes".

I said he was misleading his students in this way; he was not educating them but giving them false information. In fact, I just wouldn't shut up about it.

He said I was "beating a dead horse" and I needed to "drop it". Even on my test, though, I wrote a comment about "mislabeled as..." rather than just letting it go.

Yes, I was a pain even then.

That's why I still speak out. I value the truth. Truth, even when inconvenient, painful, or annoying is still better than a comforting lie. Liberty is better for the individual than The State. Taxation is theft. The military is anti-liberty and pro-tyranny. And no amount of denial will change the facts.

Added:
I've recently realized this is why I won't go along with the "transgender" lie or the "non-binary" nonsense. If it's a flounder, it's a flounder even if it imagines it is (or lies about being) a skate. I won't lie or go along with a lie (or a delusion) just because I'm told to do so. You aren't helping by going along. If you identify the speeding truck that's coming at you as a butterfly, it's still a truck and will kill you if you don't move out of its way. No matter how much it hurts your feelings to admit it's really a truck. Reality doesn't care about your feelings. Every cell in your body will testify against you if you misidentify your sex (and "gender" is a feature of some words, not of biological lifeforms-- another lie). Now, you might get away with it if I can't tell by looking, and I don't really care in that case. But if I can tell by looking that you are lying about what you are, I'm not going to go along with the lie. And I'm not sorry.

.

"Men's Rights"- My take on Scott Adams' post

I mentioned the Dilbert Blog's post on "Men's rights" (since deleted for "too much attention") and my relevant observations previously. So here ya go...

He posts a laundry list of supposed "unfair treatment" of men:

...examples of unfair treatment of men include many elements of the legal system, the military draft in some cases, the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men, circumcision, and the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women.

• The inequality in the legal system is a real problem, and in fact goes a long ways toward demonstrating that the legal system is entirely illegitimate. Get rid of the government's monopoly on the "legal system" and this ceases to be a real problem.

• The military draft is slavery. It is wrong no matter who is enslaved by whom. Make sure no one can ever again enslave another without facing the consequences and this isn't an issue.

• No one has a "right" to have the same life expectancy as anyone else. That's just biology and chance. Your own behavior can also impact your life expectancy, and that is neither "fair" nor "unfair". It's just reality. Which brings us to the related matter of suicide. Suicide is a choice and isn't forced on anyone. While societal pressures may contribute to a higher rate for men, the blame ultimately lies with the person who kills himself.

• Circumcision is barbaric, yet until parents, including the fathers, realize that genital mutilation is wrong, it will still happen. Guys are probably close to 50% of the problem here- we can't lay it all on anyone else.

• Government agencies set up "primarily for women" are no different than any other government agencies. The agencies are the problem; not who they are supposedly set up to benefit. The only real beneficiary is the government. Creating dependency doesn't help the women that are targeted.

Then there are the "social aspects" that he mentions. "Manners" and the fact that "society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas".

Sure, there may be some costs associated with going along, but in most cases you only impose these costs on yourself to avoid the costs of refusing. Maybe the supposed higher pay of men compared to women (something that has never happened in my favor, though) is partial compensation for men having to put up with some of this feminization of society.

In the end, civilization will be the real loser if men's natural strengths keep being suppressed. The women who steered civilization over this particular cliff (and the men who helped them do it) won't escape the consequences even while they try to blame men.

Commenting repetition

I often find myself reluctant to comment on some blogs because I don't feel like having to endlessly defend my views from the same old misguided anti-liberty objections. Once I comment I feel obligated to follow through even knowing where it will go before I start. It's like a broken record that always shows up no matter which record I think I am playing.

I was thinking about this when I read a since-deleted post on Dilbert Blog on "Men's rights". (It gained "too much attention", he said.)

I had some thoughts on his post, yet I know if I comment the debate will go the same direction it always goes when I comment (if I am not ignored). No matter what I address, or how unrelated the subject is, the objections always take the same path, and even though I feel quite capable of dealing with any of the "liberty-phobics'" objections effectively, I get tired of having to say the same thing that I have said hundreds of times, and that others are saying, and have said for hundreds of years. Yes, I often copy and paste from things I have written before, but that has become so tiresome.

Sure, I could just post and run. There is no real obligation to follow through- that is just me imposing rules on myself. It just seems it would be better to say nothing than to not carry on to the bitter (or occasionally sweet) end.

So, I'll just state my opinion on the "Men's Rights" post here.

The .009 Scam has run its course

I'm talking about adding that ubiquitous 9/10 of a cent added to the price of every gallon of gasoline.

Even considering the fact that it is stated in the posted price- it is still an attempt to psychologically trick people into believing the gasoline is a little cheaper than it really is. That makes it a scam.

It was always a dishonest practice, now it is a pointless one as well. Back when gas cost 35 cents per gallon, that extra 9/10 of a cent was a significant percentage of the price. Over 2.25%, in fact. That made it even worse.

Is your integrity so unimportant to you, as a gas station owner, that you still feel the need to skim that extra 9/10 of a cent when the gasoline costs $3.40 or more per gallon? That scammed 9/10 of a penny is now only about a quarter of a percent of the price, and will continue to be less significant as the price rises.

Yes, I realize that if a person buys 15 gallons, you get the same profit off that 9/10 of a cent whether the price per gallon is 35 cents, or $5.45. Round the price up to the next whole penny, and you can add another 1/10 of a cent to the total honestly.

I would like to see a gas station (or franchise) owner step up and publicly reject the traditional price scamming game. Just round it up to the honest whole-cent price, and publicize that you did it. I'll bet you'd get more business just as a reward for rejecting the scam. At the least, you'd be trading a dishonest psychological trick for an honest one.

Lose the tail

A libertarian who supports or advocates The State (or "borders", or any "taxation", or the military, or whatever) is being inconsistent.

It doesn't mean he is not a libertarian. He is like a human being with a tail. The tail does not mean he is not human, but the tail is not a human feature. It is an anomaly. It is an inconsistency.

(OK, I'll admit it, I always wanted a tail. A big fluffy wolf tail would be nice. But that's another issue.)

When the game is rigged against you...

...refuse to play the game anymore.

Sure, it would be better if you refused to "play" as soon as you realize it is rigged whether you are on the losing side or the winning side. Most people just don't realize the game is rigged unless it is rigged against them. That's just human nature.

Marriage is rigged against men- not due to the institution of marriage itself, but due to "legal" interference. Why anyone would want government to sanction or regulate their relationships is beyond me.

Voting and politics is rigged against liberty. It is simply not possible to vote for a real increase in liberty. The system selects against anyone who even understands liberty and could make a positive difference.

Employment is now rigged against men, especially "white" men. I have been told, right to my face- in person, that I could not be hired because I was a "white male". They still took my application in order to give the appearance of fairness, but at least I was warned not to expect anything to come of it.

There may be other things that are rigged that I simply haven't run up against, or noticed. Maybe because they are rigged in my favor.

I have nothing against those who benefit from the rigged game. Very few of them had anything to do with it. Almost none of them even see that anything is rigged, since as I said before it is hard to see that things are rigged unless they are rigged against you.

I intend to not play when I discover a rigged game. I'll find a more suitable one or establish my own game, instead. Agorism is a good example of one response to a rigged game.

Morality vs Ethics- the definitions

I don't mean the same thing when I use the words "morality" and "ethics". I do not consider those words to be interchangeable, but to have discrete meanings, at least when I use them now.

Briefly:
Ethics = objective right and wrong.
Morality = subjective right and wrong; "situational ethics".

More detailed version:

When I think of "morality" I think of what the majority believes is right, here, now, in this situation. Usually it is a religious majority, but not always. Often, today, it is a collectivist statist majority (which, actually, is still a religious system).

This belief can (and usually does) change over time. It can be founded upon actual right and wrong, but only incidentally. It is usually very subjective, even though those who base their opinions upon it claim vehemently otherwise. Murder is objectively wrong and can be considered immoral, but so can silly things like smoking pot or having sex with certain consenting individuals. And murder can also be considered "moral" in some cases, if The State or a religion says it is OK. Morality can be based upon whatever is "legal" or criminalized. In this case, an act may be "moral" one day, and "immoral" the next. This is absurd to the extreme!

(Note: I have been told that what I am calling "morality" is actually "mores". So, to clarify this point, because I'd rather be right than be stubborn, I looked up the word "mores", and I got this definition:
"the essential or characteristic customs and conventions of a community". No, that's not what I am talking about. Customs and characteristics of a community might partly encompass morals and ethics, but seems separate from both.)

Ethics are what I think of as objective right and wrong. Unchangeable regardless of the prevailing culture. Based upon the Zero Archation Principle, and the recognition that such acts are never within your rights-- no matter what pretty names you give them, and no matter which "authority" claims in this instance they are OK. Ethics stay rooted in place.

Added: I just saw the best explanation ever, from "The Wrath of Khan", concerning the difference between the two:

"Ethics stem from the objective and reciprocal claims to self and property ownership. 

Morals stem from the subjective value judgments of self and property worth. 

Ethics exclusively concern rights and violations thereof. Morals concern values and violations thereof. Force can only be used when rights are violated. Social pressure when societal norms are violated."

Another great explanation of the difference between morality and ethics comes from R R Schoettker:

"To me ethics is the distinction between right and wrong behavior and a preference for doing the right in practice while morality is just the collective social approximation of this structured so that at any particular time or place whatever is expedient for the majority is roughly adhered to. As any honest observer can attest a mere social morality can still encompass a significant degree of plainly unethical behavior." 

.

"Thank you for your service"?

I read something in the weekly local paper that really pissed me off. It's probably better to vent a little here than to send another letter to the editor. This paper has no website, so I can't link to the original, unfortunately.

It was about some poor young deluded State pawn who was injured while in the military.

While committing the evil act of occupying a foreign country (Iraq) for "his" government, he was injured by a roadside bomb set by the locals. Of course, those defending their own territory were referred to as "terrorists" in the article. Sorry, but the invaders are the terrorists, not those using violence* to kill the invaders. But, The State's tools will never face that reality since it would require them to accept that they are the bad guys who would not get injured or killed in Iraq if they stopped doing the wrong thing.

The misguided kid then spoke of how anxious he is to get back to Iraq so he can continue killing people for the US government. He repeated the common hypnotic chant "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" as his justification for getting his rocks off murdering people. No, you poor idiot; you fight them over there and give them a reason to come over here and fight. For generations yet to come. You are endangering your family, your yet-to-be-born children, your friends, and your neighbors by your acts of aggression and your total lack of ethics. And you are endangering me and those I love, too. Inexcusable!

Then, the columnist got all philosophic about how young fools, pardon- "heroes", like this are shouldering the burden of defending America. He wrote of the sacrifices they make, and how their families never know when they could be sent overseas, or whether they will ever come home. He is so proud of them. I could gag.

You are NOT "defending your nation"; you are propping up a corrupt global empire. Good job.

So, yeah, "Thank you for your service" in killing innocent people who are no threat to anyone who isn't being an aggressive invader.

Better yet, learn what Liberty really means, and STOP supporting those who are destroying it. Choose the right side to support against those who are the real threat. You won't even need to travel very far, and certainly won't need to cross any oceans.

*A bomb is indiscriminate, and could have injured innocent people as well, so I don't think this is an acceptable way to defend yourself or your home in most cases. "Collateral damage" is NEVER acceptable; not at any level. Yet, when the invaders are so technologically superior, sometimes you may feel forced to do things that are wrong and face the consequences, while recognizing you are stepping beyond what you have a right to do. I can't state categorically if this is the case in this instance.

----

Donate?

Legislators need to rethink laws

Legislators need to rethink laws

(As originally written; not as published)

The poll which appeared in this paper, concerning "The Portales Ten"- the individuals charged with the "crime" of gambling at the Portales Country Club- gives me hope. It showed that a substantial percentage of those who took the poll recognize that laws can be wrong.

A third of the respondents took a libertarian view. Perhaps it was the soft libertarian view, which even the early Supreme Court agreed with, that "laws" which are not based upon specific Constitutional authority are already null and void without further action. That is encouraging. Perhaps some of those respondents even thought more deeply and recognized that if the "law" violates the basic human right to live as you see fit, as long as you don't cause actual harm to any innocent individual, the "law" is illegitimate.

The people who voted that the "law" needs to be changed so that travesties like this don't occur in the future are at least pointing in the right direction. Perhaps they actually agree more with libertarians, while still wishing to remove the specter of arrest for those who dare cross the misguided "law". Perhaps they still feel an obligation to obey "laws" even in cases where the "law" is obviously wrong, until they are able to convince The State to agree with them. As more and more things get criminalized, this feeling will fade.

The only ones I really pity are those who voted "Yes. The law is the law" and those who violate it should be charged. This is the position that is completely devoid of any ethical compass whatsoever.

"Laws" are suggested, written, passed, and enforced by fallible individuals and are wrong-headed as often as not, even in the best of circumstances. In recent decades the balance has shifted so that the vast majority of "laws" are now counterfeit "laws"- they are written in "legalese" so they look like a real law, and they are enforced against people with force up to, and including, deadly force- yet they are not based upon the necessary foundation- the protection of an individual or his property from coercion- that underlies all real law. Counterfeit "laws" are an attempt to regulate or control something other than aggression or theft/fraud.

Everything that is actually wrong, and a great many things that are not, was already illegal centuries ago. New legislation is just a jobs program for people who can't do anything constructive. Society needs no new "laws"; it just needs to get rid of, or ignore, the bad ones. The only thing, if any, that a legislative body should be doing nowdays, rather than passing new "laws" or trying to patch bad "laws" to make them less bad, is abolishing counterfeit "laws". That would keep them busy for decades.

The Bradley Manning Conundrum

I'm torn on the whole Bradley Manning thing.

One one hand it is ridiculous to claim that exposing State wrong-doings is a crime. It is obvious (to rational people) that the punishment being imposed on him is way out of proportion to what he is accused of doing.

One the other hand he DID join the military. Didn't he know that the military is nothing but an organization, funded with stolen money, manned by mind-numbed slaves, set up for the purpose of building and maintaining a liberty-destroying empire, and for killing and destroying the enemies of evil authorities?

As they say, dance with the Devil and you're gonna get burned.

Maybe he didn't know any better when he joined the military. Maybe he knows better now and wouldn't make the same mistake again. He's not in a position to tell us if he now knows that the US government is a terrorist organization (with America as its main target) and he was helping it spread its particular brand of terror across the globe by being one of its drones. If he could, would he apologize now for helping the bad guys before he exposed them? Was his "leak" his apology? I'm afraid we will never know.

*

Donate?

Gangs are for pussies

As I do things around town I see a lot of pinheaded, gang-wanna-be graffiti. It makes me shake my head in pity at the poor idiots who wrote it.

If you want to intimidate the rest of us, become literate or find someone who IS to write your stupid garbage. I mean, seriously, I don't care how scary or "bad" you think your pathetic, idiotic gang is, when you can't spell the simplest words, or when you write letters so illegibly that no one knows what your chest-thumping threat might have been intended to be, you just come off as a moron.

Oh, and your sad artwork of your "magnificent" (snork) body parts doesn't work either. Everyone has body parts. Plus, if I was that deformed I don't think I'd wanna illustrate the problem so everyone could laugh.

Yeah, I know, you are too scared of the rest of us to try to be an individual. You feel safety in numbers. But find "numbers" who aren't as pathetic as you to hang around with. You'd be amazed how much your life would improve, and your fear would go away. People wouldn't have a reason to kill you on sight. Stop being a pussy*.

(* "Pussy" as in a soft, weak, scared, cowardly individual, not as in "feline" or any other meaning.)

"The Fred Incident"

Years ago I told a little of this story, but I think I'd like to set it all down now. I call the whole thing "The Fred Incident". The names may have been changed- or not, but you'll never know.

A few years ago I had a friend who would talk with me about his displeasure with the governmental status quo just about anytime we got to talk. I had known him for a couple of years and I trusted him and thought he sounded pretty reasonable.

He had told me he had been diagnosed as "paranoid/schizophrenic", but that he really wasn't. My only early warning was when he mentioned that he had an "alien implant" (and this was only a couple of weeks before "the incident"). I thought he was joking, and didn't think more of it. We had many long phone conversations about just about anything. He never seemed dangerous or anything.

Until "the incident".

He had loaned me, without prompting, some money to use to help a family that we both knew, and that I was staying with. I used it to buy food for the household. The next day at karaoke he asked what I had spent the money on and I told him. That was a little strange since he had loaned it to me specifically to buy food.

He seemed a little agitated. I still had the receipt and I offered it to him. We sat and talked and he started claiming I had tricked him into loaning me the money. I was a little shocked as it had been his idea. If there had been any way possible to do so, I would have paid him back immediately in order to avoid any problem, but I couldn't.

He began talking again about his "implant". He said the military had put it there decades ago. Unfortunately, I didn't take him seriously and made some joke about putting magnets inside his hat to scramble the signal. This got a red-faced spittle-laced lecture about electrical engineering. Then it began to get more personal.

The real fireworks began. He started saying that I was controlling his mind through his "implant" and that I was a "Martian". I told him that I was pretty certain I was human. He said "Why would you say that? Are you not positive?" I said I was, and he said "That is just what a Martian would say". He was getting extremely angry, too. He began pounding his fist on the table and his face was very red. I was trying to just get him calmed down at this point, but everything I did he saw as me trying to use my "Martian thought-control powers" to manipulate him.

He said I was able to force people to do things they didn't want to by getting inside their heads. He claimed I was inside his mind, reading his thoughts and putting my own in there, too. This is how I had tricked him into loaning me the money.

He became more and more upset. He spoke of the significance of his name and his initials. He went into a long discussion about his initials (M.A.T.), claiming that they were significant and meant he was to be an emissary between the Martians and Terrans. He laid out his "logic" in fine detail. Then he went on about other people's names and initials, especially focusing on John Denver.

He spoke of his own power and importance, but said he couldn't "claim to be God" (I suppose that should have been a relief).

He was talking about being in "Army Intelligence" back in the early '70s, and that he was still "in", but it was a secret. The more he spoke, the more unreal his claims became. He told of trying to drive to the Pentagon once in the middle of the night to carry out some mission, and stopping on a bridge instead of going through with it. I can't remember the specifics of this particular tale, but only that it seemed very improbable and yet I could tell he really believed it.

He claimed to be killing people "in high government positions" with mental feedback through his implant. He said he could "see" people being carried out of the Pentagon in body bags- people who had short-circuited their brains by trying to mentally influence him. His brain was stronger and was able to resist the bad things they were trying to get him to do, so he said.

He then asked me to knock him unconscious so I could kidnap him and a girl he wanted (he wanted me to knock her out, too), and take them somewhere they couldn't be tracked. He said that the only way his implant would not be able to lead his enemies to him is if he was unconscious and unable to know where he was being taken.

He did eventually calm down and I got out without harm. It was about 2 AM at this time. The next morning, very early, I called and warned the girl he wanted me to help kidnap. She freaked out a little because he had just called her up and was going to come over in about an hour. She didn't wait to hear the whole story, but hung up to call him with some excuse, then called me back to find out what had happened.

After this, I obviously wasn't close to him anymore. He was still in my circle, but I did warn a few people to watch out. Some of them never did believe that he had acted that way. One mutual friend had even been in the vicinity during his fit, but hadn't seen anything unusual. Yet, he did slip up to a couple of other people. He mentioned blowing my head off to mutual friends a few times when I sang a karaoke song he thought was written especially for him, but most never saw his bizarre behavior, and downplayed my concerns.

Added: I know now, due to encountering more people like him, that he likely suffered from the belief that is now known as being a "targeted individual".

.

Preferences vs principles 2: the other side of the coin

As I said previously, most of my personal preferences could be said to be "conservative". But not all. There are a few things that could be seen as "liberal".

For example:

I despise religion of any sort. It's your business if you want to worship something/someone as long as you don't try to coerce anyone else to go along. That means you don't base "laws" on your superstitions.

I also have a lot of skepticism of "traditional morality" when it comes to sex and "family". I don't think the traditional family works too well for a lot of people. Maybe most people can force themselves into that too-round hole, but in a lot of cases it isn't a comfortable fit.

I also doubt that punishment does much to change behavior. Instead I'm afraid it simply reinforces an "us vs them" mentality in those who are punished- especially when the punishment is out of proportion to the act (such as in the case of ALL counterfeit "laws"). And I trust no State enough to give it the "authority" to kill people for any reason. (The ONLY legitimate death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer.)

Preferences vs principles

Most of my personal preferences, when I have a preference, could be described as "conservative".

I want to be able to carry guns everywhere I go without any "authority" having any say in it whatsoever.

I have no desire to use drugs without a real medical need.

I have no desire to marry a man, nor to have sex with one.

I know taxation is theft, and welfare is destructive.

I recognize that "affirmative action" is just racial or sexual discrimination codified by "law".

However, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that making "laws" against non-aggressive consensual behavior by others is wrong. Actually "wrong" isn't a strong enough word. Not just "not nice" or "controlling", but absolutely, horribly evil. There is no excuse for it.

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?