Guest commentary: Angela Kissell

Note: I am doing this as a favor to a friend; the opinions expressed therein are hers. This was to be a Letter to the Editor of the Clovis News Journal, but was rejected because she had previously written a very different LTE on the same subject. I don't do this often (in fact, I don't think I have ever done this), but this needs to get some local exposure and I am glad to give her a forum for that. KM

I have had my eyes opened.

Monday night at the affordable housing town hall meeting, Ms. Brumfield proudly declared that "for every one dollar sent to Washington DC, New Mexico receives TWO back." As if taking money from other states, shifting money from the pockets of hard working individuals in one area to another area is a great thing. The term for that is "wealth redistribution."

Back to affordable housing. I would like to point out that the affordable housing idea grew in places like California and in the East Coast states (think Maryland). If this ordinance passes, we will match up with those states, not to mention places within the state like Santa Fe, NM. In my opinion, those states and town are NOT known for fiscal or moral conservative values. I used to believe Clovis was a fairly conservative town. I believe that no longer.

An interesting fact: the name of the group that supports the affordable housing ordinance is "Clovis People for Progress." Progress is the root word of progressive. Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. This is the aim of the AH plan and ordinance, to use government (local, state and federal) to "fix" a housing "problem" in this city.

After last night's meeting, after hearing the city council members, mayor, MFA representative, some city staffers and a few Main Street business owners state their support for this AH ordinance, and pairing that with some other things that have happened in the town, such as the sudden purchase of the golf course, I had an epiphany. In Clovis politics, there are 3 groups: the apathetic, the progressives, and those fighting the progressives and their progressive agenda to spend us into oblivion.

Fight on, Clovisites!!

.

The internet- polarizing or not?

Is the internet a polarizing force?

I have seen where a lot of people claim that the internet has caused people to seek out- "self select"- only those voices who they agree with and exclude opposing views. This, supposedly, causes "us" to be less likely to experience differing points of view and makes confirmation bias almost unnecessary because we hear nothing but what we want to hear. I seriously doubt this.

I don't know about you, but for me the internet has exposed me to points of view radically opposed to my own (both past and present) that I would have never heard had I never gotten online.

I have also noticed that people who I have known for years who are online a fair amount have had a greater change in their overall attitudes on different issues than those who hate the internet (or avoid it for whatever reason). I don't think this is a coincidence.

Every controversial idea I espouse meets with opposition at some point, and I am constantly disagreeing with someone on some site. In "real life" I never debated politics or religion even when I was thinking the other person was completely off their rocker- preferring just to stay silent for the sake of peace. How many times did others do the same for me? On the internet, for good or bad, this doesn't happen. If you claim "liberty is better than slavery" someone is bound to vigorously type "BS!".

I'm not sure where all these people are who have managed to find corners of the internet that only feed their already dearly-held convictions, to the exclusion of everything else, but that isn't my experience. Not by a long shot.

It makes me suspect the agenda of those who make the claim that "the internet is polarizing society".

.

Visit Scenic (and free) Libertopia

Don't forget to visit Libertopia from time to time. And don't worry- nothing actually happened to me.

.

Kids and Cops

I spend a lot of time just sitting and observing while my daughter plays with other kids. These are never kids we know, but just kids who happen to be wherever we happen to be.

I have noticed something interesting, and even hopeful. The majority of the kids view cops as the bad guys. I have never seen any kids playing "cops and robbers"; rather they just play until the bully of the group says "I'm a cop!" and starts attacking the other kids. I have told my daughter she doesn't have to accept this kind of behavior.

I have also heard what the kids say if a cop car drives past, and none of it is positive. Lest you think I contribute to this in any way, I assure you I don't say a word.

There is a change in perception occurring in this country and LEOs have no one to blame but themselves and their own out-of-control abusive (and frequently murderous) behavior. Even kids are catching on to the reality.

.

Can an anarchist obey counterfeit "laws"?

Is an anarchist not an anarchist if he obeys a counterfeit "law" because there's a gun at his head? Yes he is still an anarchist because he lacks a particular belief, the belief in The State as a legitimate thing, in his mind.

.

Parenting

I think a lot of parents would be better parents if they would realize one simple fact: Most things kids get in trouble for isn't really wrong, it just pisses off the parent.

.

Kiddie Porn: crime scene photos?

This is just a question that popped into my mind today. It bothers me and will continue to do so until I write it out, so here you go:

Since looking at child pornography is a crime, shouldn't looking at other crime photos also be a crime? I mean, both are photographic records of a crime. Right? I also know of people who get excited by looking at other crime photos, just as a pedophile gets excited by looking at the photos of his particular type of crime scene. Personally, I think both are very sick.

Obviously I don't think looking at any photograph can be a real wrong act, although producing them could very well be.

.

Cleaning up after themselves- Statists "can't"

How many times have you heard a kid say something like "I can't, daddy. It's too heavy" when it is time to pick up the toys? Probably pretty often. The amusing thing is that it is only "too heavy" when it is time to put it back; not when it was being dragged out.

Reminds me of statists with libertarian ideas. It wasn't "too hard" to make the mess by applying statist methods, but the thought of cleaning it up by doing the unpleasant things (such as respecting liberty) that are required is just "too hard" now. Or "too scary". Statists seem to be looking for any excuse to avoid liberty. So be it. I will leave them to their disaster.

.

Easier to change self than state

Easier to change self than state (My CNJ column from June 9, 2011. As written, not as published.)

You can see anything more clearly after taking a step back from it than you can while you are in the middle of it.

If you want the truth about a cult, you ask someone who was once a part of it, but who got out. You can't get a very accurate version of the truth from someone who still is involved. They are too close to, and too invested in, the issue. I think the same goes for the political process. I was once involved and active, but then I took a breath and stepped back and I saw the futility of everything I had worked for. I had been acting on a string of false premises that were actually adding to the problem.

If I really believed a rain dance could make it rain here, I'd gladly do one and ignore the sideways glances of my more normal neighbors. In the same way, if I still believed taking political action could bring liberty back to America, I'd be the most politically active man on Earth. However both beliefs are just that: beliefs. Neither has any basis in objective reality.

When considering politics, too many people ask the wrong questions and make the wrong assumptions. They ask what government can do about an issue instead of asking if government should do anything, and instead of questioning whether previous government actions created the problem in the first place.

The State has a lot of practice at creating a problem, then pretending to be the only possible solution. The economy and crime are two salient examples of this destructive tactic.

If political action is inherently unlikely to produce liberty, what other course of action is available to you? If you value liberty you must start with yourself. Make yourself free, and respect the liberty of all those around you, even those you don't like. This is much more powerful than electing representatives and expecting them to protect your liberty. You must take responsibility for yourself and for those whom you are consensually bound to be responsible for.

So, step back, re-examine your assumptions, and consider if your time and energy could be better spent changing the one person you truly have the power to change rather than begging someone else to make the changes you want.

Taxpayers shouldn't foot hotel bill

Taxpayers shouldn't foot hotel bill (My CNJ column from June 2, 2011. As written, not as published.)

I think it is a noble thing to want to save the Hotel Clovis building from decay or destruction. Personally, I love to see historic buildings preserved and put back to use.

I'm somewhat less enthusiastic over the plan to use it for subsidized housing. If you own the building I think it is yours to use as you see fit as long as you harm no other person, however I believe subsidized housing is harmful to everyone.

Where some people go astray is when they demand that others pay, through taxation, "public funds", or other government coercion, for their own pet projects. Other people do not value the same things you do and it is not very nice to force them to pay for that which you think is important. If I believed in doing that I might demand a huge tax-funded "living history" site, complete with tipis, bison, and gunfights, somewhere around town. It might become a tourist attraction and I'd probably want to live there. But I know it is wrong to get what I want that way, even if 51% of the voters agreed with me.

A majority of 100%, minus one individual, has no real right to force the lone holdout to finance or participate in their project if he'd rather not. As long as he is allowed to opt out, losing neither his time nor his money in the process, he has no authority to stand in the way of the voluntarily organized and financed project he opposes, either.

If something really should be done, there will be volunteers to do it, or a market for it to be done "for profit". A fund drive for the Hotel Clovis building might be the proper way to put your money where your mouth is. I'll even pledge the first dollar. The campaign to "Keep Cannon" got the community organized and energized; why not devote the same energy to the campaign to "Save the Hotel"? If it doesn't gain momentum, perhaps the desire is not really there. If that is the case, a private group could still be organized to purchase the hotel with their own money and save it in their own way. Once again, I'm willing to help.

To those who want to save the hotel, I ask: What is stopping you? My follow-up question is: Why do you let that stop you?

.

Missing person! (Found safe)

William R. Stone, possibly between KC area Missouri and Redfield/Des Moines area, Iowa.

And get the latest HERE

Update: He is safe. Good to know!

.

"Would you like brains with that?"

Yes, Unfortunate Truth #1 is "People are idiots". But it's still amusing (sometimes) to see it in action.

I was at the mall and saw, at the generic food vendor, their nacho setup. The chips were in a "warming bin". The light bulb responsible for keeping the chips warm had been replaced with a compact fluorescent bulb! Ha ha!

.

Poking gods makes one unpopular

I have to admit, I am tired of being unpopular. But I'm going to tread into that territory once again. Just because it is important to get some things out there even when it will make people angry. And this will.

To be popular I would have to either shut up or lie. Or I can continue to speak out and be unpopular (or as my cousin recently said, be "a dickhead".)

From my interactions with Christians I know that people don't like it when you expose their god as imaginary or as a fraud. (And, as far as the "God of the Bible" goes, he has been completely disproved*. Maybe, just maybe, there might be something out in the Universe that, because of technology or evolution, the word "god" might seem to be the only description available, but it won't be the "God of the Bible", and that is absolutely certain. Sorry.)

Which brings me to today's main point: The State is today's most popular god. I will repeat that: Statism, the belief in the legitimacy of The State, what most people mean when they say "government", is nothing but a religion where The State is the god. A person can believe in the god of The State alone, or in conjunction with supernatural god(s), or neither.

A little explanation is in order. People who worship, or at least believe in, a supernatural god have their own concept of that god in their mind that really doesn't mesh very well with anyone else's concept of god. The only reason they don't notice this fact is that they haven't examined it too closely (or in the right way) and they only see the god they personally imagine (or interpret through writings they read) and they assume that's the god everyone they worship with sees as well. If they could actually get inside the head of the person sitting in the pew next to them they'd be shocked at the god that person is worshiping- and vice versa. The reason I know this is that I asked a lot of people over a long period of time to describe "God" in detail to me. And I kept digging deeper into their concept. Beyond the most superficial description there was no similarity from one person to the next, even when they believed they worshiped the same god in the same church. Even the descriptions, personality traits, and characteristics of the "Biblical God" are completely different in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. But people try not to notice. It is as if many different objects- rocks, turtles, watermelons, books, ice cubes, televisions, and pillows- are painted the same color and given the same surface texture and said to be the same thing.

The statist's god is the opposite. The god of The State comes in many forms that are all much more similar than they are different, except on the surface. Unlike supernatural gods, with the god of The State only the minor details differ. Like how the people who control the State are selected or take power. The deeper you dig, the more identical the States are. They all share the characteristics of supporting themselves through theft, a monopoly of "legalized" force, and very few people questioning the legitimacy of this god, even when they oppose the particular form they happen to dislike. In this case it is like taking a bunch of watermelons and painting them differently, or gluing a bunch of different things to the surface and claiming that they are all completely different from one another. More than believe in any particular version of a supernatural god. Tragically, most people still believe some form of State is inevitable and necessary.

Even worse than opposing the god of State, in the eyes of the Believers, is exposing it as a fraud. And it IS a fraud. It is imaginary insofar as it doesn't exist as a monolithic real thing; it is made up of individual people who have the same flaws as those the State Worshipers pretend The State will protect us from. It is a fraud because it doesn't protect any innocent person from anything, it simply takes the place of the freelance thief and aggressor and claims its actions are good, where the same actions would be bad if you or I committed them without working for The State. So we must be protected from those bad guys by others doing the same thing? Ridiculous!

What got me thinking on this was a comment I made on an "atheist's" video, which caused her to comment back to me "you're an idiot". Among other things. It comes down to the fact that I simply got her to expose the fact that she still believes in a god, but her god is The State. I pity her for that.

* Before someone starts harping on the common belief that "you can't prove a negative"- yes you can. I can prove that my hip pocket does not contain a 25-ton, fluorescent orange, living, breathing, flying Tyrannosaurus rex. But suppose I made the claim that such a creature was in my hip pocket. You could prove that my hip pocket doesn't contain that creature in spite of my claims, probably without even coming to me and examining the inside of my pocket. You can use logic, and the laws of the Universe, to disprove my preposterous claim. You can prove a negative.

Added: I have modified somewhat my contention that The State is analogous to god. Read my newer thoughts here.

.

Driver's Licenses for "Illegal" Humans

Driver's licenses for "illegal [sic] immigrants" is a non-issue that won't go away because inconsistent (and unethical) people keep focusing on the wrong question.

Recently I commented on a letter to the editor about that very issue. Nothing I haven't said before, and still true.

Here is my comment:

There is no one, no not even YOU, who can get through a day without violating several "laws". It is estimated that we each commit an average of 3 federal felonies every day. Usually without even knowing it. With the millions of laws on the books, federal, state, and local- as well as all the ordinances that are not actual laws but are imposed upon us as though they were, there is no telling just how "illegal" you and I truly are. We are all "illegal" in some (and probably many) ways. To single out people who migrate from land illegitimately claimed by one government to land illegitimately claimed by another, without getting permission from those governments, as "worse illegals" than other people is hypocritical.

Don't steal from anyone; don't attack anyone; don't damage private property- and I don't care where you were born. You are less a danger to me than people born next door who send The State after others and who live off of government (stolen) money.

Then to clarify, I added:

And, just in case anyone gets the idea I think independent migrants should be forced to have drivers licenses, think again: http://blog.kentforliberty​.com/2011/06/no-more-drive​rs-licenses-for-illegals.h​tml Driving is a basic human right, not a government-granted privilege.

And then replied to another comment equating not getting a "driver's license" with stealing and lying:

If there is stealing and lying going on it is not being committed by the people who don't have "driver's licenses", but by those who claim to have the authority to demand such. No one has an obligation to obey an unethical or immoral order.

It really does matter. When anyone's rights are violated for the pretense of "law" it harms me, too. Why can't the statists get that inside their miniscule skulls?

.

Nancy Grace and a verdict she hates

I am a deeply flawed human being. I am thrilled that Nancy Grace is infuriated.

In Libertopia, there is the Case of the dead little girl.

.

The State: A "Lose/Lose Propostion"

The State is a lose/lose proposition. Plus, the more powerful the government, the worse the situation for all.

The regular people lose immediately by being stolen from to pay for the government and its projects. They lose when their liberties are violated along with their "inalienable" rights. They lose when they are killed for breaking some counterfeit "law".

And eventually those in government, and those Useful Idiots who have supported and advocated a powerful government, lose when the "chickens", which they have so carefully bred and raised, come home to roost. It may even be a law of the Universe.

.

Happy Secession Day 2011

Happy "Tell The State to Go ____ Itself" Day!

Isn't it pathetic that governments pretend to have authority to forbid the use of explosives in celebrating a day which enshrines the right of the people to ignore tyrannical governments and to kill government employees who won't back off?

I suppose the real pathetic thing is that governments do this without consequence.

So, since it has all been said so many times already, how about some links to my comments from years past:

The Declaration of Independence vs. the Declaration of Dependence

Independence means secession- then and now

The perversion of Independence Day

Confession: I Don't Really Like Fireworks

Enjoy the day and exercise any freedoms you still can.

.

A very different "Libertopia"

I was doing a web search on my other blog, Dispatches From Libertopia, and came across a very different blog entry by that same name. Once again I am stunned and saddened by a person's ignorance.

Wait, not "ignorance"; by that person's stupidity. Sorry, but "ignorance" isn't intentional, and to say things like "Wherever government is meant to be of by and for the people, to be anti-government always means to be against the people.", and to believe it, is willfully stupid, not ignorant. I found 4 major problems with that sentence, not including punctuation. And that was just the first stink-nugget. It goes even further off-course from there. I didn't waste my time reading all of them.

It would be simple, though time-consuming, to answer each of the 46 (Roman-numbered) points and utterly destroy them. But they aren't even worth the effort.

The blogger clearly confuses (or conflates) "libertarian" with "conservative" (and that isn't the only error in facts, logic, and thinking the author makes) and builds a glorious strawman upon that mistake, reveling in his "progressive" political hatefest as he pathetically attempts to tear down his own failed creation. In some cases even his strawman kicks his butt even as he pretends not to notice. It's sad, really.

If you wish to be stunned, click on the link, but you have been warned. Your mind will reel as you see and mentally refute each point error by error- on several levels if it is more than a couple of words long. Just- WOW!

.

National debt

The US government is bankrupt (financially as well as ethically and morally). Everyone knows this and has known it for a very long time. There is an obvious solution.

Close the government; let the employees go find honest jobs, turn off the lights, take down the signs, lock the doors, and divide the assets among the creditors.

Since governments, anywhere of any sort, are not legitimate, no assets go to them (sorry, Chinese government) but only to individuals.

The US government has been stealing from you your entire life- promising "services" today and a future payoff in exchange for your cooperation. You are being lied to.

It's your money and you need it NOW (stealing a line from the TV commercial). The only reasonable solution is to stop the irresponsible governing and take away the option to re-offend. And to make the government make good on its debts. Does the government owe you a few machine guns and HumVees? Yes, it does.

.

Patriots not deserving of criticism

Patriots not deserving of criticism (My Clovis News Journal from 5-29-2011, about a local group, the High Plains Patriots. As written, not as [briefly] published)

I'm sure the High Plains Patriots would consider themselves "conservative", rather than libertarian, but I'll bet I'd agree with them on about half of their opinions; those that promote and respect liberty for ALL.

I think about this because I have to admit that, although I am not a fan of using the political method for getting things done, greatly preferring the economic method instead, I admire the spunk of the High Plains Patriots and the way they frustrate the plans of local politicians by forcing their tax and spend schemes to a vote. Anything that irritates those who would rule by fiat amuses me.

I certainly don't agree with the criticisms that the High Plains Patriots are wasting tax money by insisting that the plans of those in government not be imposed unilaterally upon those who will be forced to pay for them. If you are that worried about saving tax money, then stop proposing ways to spend it that the High Plains Patriots and others will insist be voted on. Not that a vote to take and spend your neighbor's money has any validity anyway. Donate your own money, but keep your hand out of the other guy's pocket.

If you have a system in place you use against people to get your own way, you can't be surprised when people use that same system against you, or at least use it in ways you don't like. That includes playing by the rules when those rules are inconvenient, expensive, or when you are scared of the possible outcome. No one is forced to enter politics and risk having their schemes thwarted. Politicians could simply enter the market and gamble with their own money.

It is part of the price of entering politics that the system politicians decided to become a part of is set up with certain rules- rules that really only apply to those who voluntarily join the game- and those rules are not supposed to make life easier for politicians, but to bind them so that it isn't too easy for them to violate the liberty of those they claim to represent (and those they don't).

For those who believe in politics to say that once a politician has been elected, whatever he does is "the voters' will", is dangerous. There must be a "safety switch". One of the least offensive, to most, has been the "safety switch" of putting things to a vote when the politicians would rather you simply go along with their grand designs. Demonize this rather innocuous safety switch too much and more people may decide the whole thing is a scam and join those like me in working toward real liberty.

**************************

PS note: I feel I sometimes send the paper a peacock, and they publish a turkey. Yeah, a newspaper probably isn't the place to get too hung up on the nuances of language, but I take a lot of care in choosing the words I use. I am very unhappy about the way this one was edited, and I mentioned one particular change to the copy editor (not THE editor), but he wouldn't change it back. Oh well, in a month I will post the undamaged original version.

UPDATE: It seems the article has disappeared from the paper's website. I'm not sure if this is a glitch or something more.

.

Your "freedom" is not good enough for me

I see it time after time after time. Some person or group declaring themselves to be "for freedom and liberty" denouncing freedom or liberty when the concepts apply to someone the "freedom lovers" dislike.

It could be "illegal immigrants", or Muslims, or homosexuals, or gun owners, or "drug" users, or business owners, or home schoolers, or whistle-blowers, or licensing refusers, or myriad others.

It is hypocrisy of the most cancerous kind.

If you are not for "liberty and justice for ALL", you are NOT for liberty and justice. If you don't respect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and property, you are not a friend of liberty. Grow up and take responsibility for your hypocrisy and admit your inconsistency. Admit you are nothing but an authoritarian monster. You might as well, because I see through your mask.

.

The Good, The Bad, and The Better

A good person is never made better by associating with government but a bad person is usually made even worse. Maybe the occasional bad person will be made slightly better by association with government, but a lateral shift isn't really an improvement. For people who really have no "good" or "bad" compass, I would guess they will always be made worse by association with government.

I think the only refutations that could be seriously attempted would be based upon disagreements over the definitions of "good", "bad", and "better".

A good person who becomes associated with government and gets a government paycheck, for example, is now benefiting from theft. That is no improvement. A good person who becomes associated with government can't help but violate the rights of other people in some way. That is not an improvement.

A bad person might stop stealing or aggressing on his own, but through his association with government he will now be doing those things with official sanction. The only possibility of "better" is if he is now doing those evil acts less frequently than before.

All in all, it seems clear that the best course of action is to steer clear of associating yourself with The State in any way.

.

Love, Money, or Accomplishment

In my life I seek love, money, or accomplishment.

I think love and money are clearly out of reach, so what about "accomplishment"?

What is "accomplishment" to me? Not the end of The State. That would be nice, but if that's what it takes for me to feel accomplished I might as well quit now.

I suppose staying true to my principles is a part of it. As well as spreading the love and understanding of liberty to anyone who is interested. Being able to solve problems through the application of libertarian/anarchist ideals feels pretty good, too. Living life without throwing The State at anyone and without using coercion just feels right.

I'm still mulling this one over.

.

Pro-life or anti-sex?

I would expect that if my "Staci's Abortion" post gets much traffic it may well serve to expose the anti-sex people who have been masquerading as "pro-life". Since pro-life people should welcome such a development, but anti-sex people will not. Just a guess.

.

"Bubble Theory" in Science News?

In the June 18, 2011 issue of Science News, on page 17, (Here's the online link) I read something that bolsters my idea of the Bubble Theory of personal property rights.

"Rather than being learned from parents, a concept of property rights may automatically grow out of 2- to 3-year-olds' ideas about bodily rights, such as assuming that another person can't touch or control one's body for no reason, Friedman proposed." (Emphasis mine)

Yes, it does say "may", but I think it is clear, and not only from this, that property rights grow out of bodily rights and therefore can't be superior to bodily rights.

.

Liberty Lines 6-23-2011

(Published in the State Line Tribune)

In case you haven't noticed, the Farwell park needs toilets. If you are like me and have spent much time there, you too have probably seen kids relieving themselves under the picnic tables, or on trees, or behind bushes. Not really an optimal situation.

However, if the only way to get toilets at the park is to use "tax" money, then forget I mentioned it. Nothing is so important it needs to be financed by robbing my neighbors. Any facilities could and should be provided and maintained strictly with private funding.

For that matter, it would be nice if some civic group could completely take over ownership of the park so that it would be entirely privately managed and maintained. I think it could be kept much nicer that way. In other towns I have seen parks owned by private organizations, such as the Lions Club, and they are almost always nicer than government-owned parks in the same towns. Who decided parks should be a government function in the first place?

But, I digress, so back to the subject at hand.

I'm sure there would be some problems if toilets were built. Vandalism? Probably. "Unapproved uses", such as sex, drugs, and "underage" smoking? Probably. Do you think those things don't go on anyway? I pick up garbage at the park for "fun"; I know more about what goes on there than you might imagine. However, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, if it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg it really is none of my business.

If you let private owners exercise their rights of ownership, I'm certain they could provide facilities and find non-governmental solutions to any behaviors they had a problem with. I know I could and surely they would be smarter than me.

.

Taking without consent stealing

Taking without consent stealing (Originally published 5-20-2011- As written; not as published.)

Once again I got through another week without feeling the need to attack anyone with physical force. And I survived anyway. Nor did I find it necessary to steal from anyone in order to survive another week. No, really!

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be.

Sure, some people were attacked and stolen from, supposedly on my behalf, but, as always, it was without my consent and it was completely unnecessary. I even witnessed some of these acts from afar as I went about my business.

Also, while no one attacked me or stole from me directly, there are always concealed violations that are said to be socially acceptable to the majority. These are done for "the good of society", by those who have been voted into positions, or by those hired by them, which permit them to get away with acts that would be illegal if you or I decided to go freelance and do them without official permission. These acts are wrong regardless.

Taking a person's private property, including his money, when he would rather keep it for his own purposes, is theft no matter what you call it. Whether it is done in a dark alley, beside the highway, or in a brightly lit office makes no difference to the foundational facts of the act.

The same goes for violating any of his other property rights. As long as a person is not stealing, attacking, or damaging other people's private property, no one has a right to interfere with him. Not by force or by law. Not even because you believe society as a collective would be better off if he were prevented from doing what he is doing, or to prevent him from harming himself. If you don't own yourself and your own life, to do with as you please as long as you harm no other individual, you own nothing.

Sure, I probably expressed some opinions in the past week that offended other people; just as other people expressed some opinions that I found horrific. However, I don't have a right to not be offended, and as long as their opinions don't "break my leg or pick my pocket", to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, then I am unscathed. As are those who interacted with me.

Dispatches From Libertopia

I have begun a new blog: Dispatches From Libertopia.

If you want an upbeat blog from the future, after the fall of The State, give it a visit.

Spelling fun-fail

I constantly text myself notes while I am out and about so that I don't forget spectacular blog ideas while I am out living my life. I've forgotten great (?) stuff before and it really, really, really sucks!

So, recently in one of my self-texts I tried to write the word "comparison". However, when I read what I had written later, I noticed it said "comaprison". What? Coma prison?

Well, if you gotta be imprisoned, I suppose being comatose would make it less dreadful.

.

Freedom, caged

Just in case you can't read the sign, it says (in part):

"BALD EAGLE

The Symbol of American freedom

This cage donated by..."

I'm thinking that is more truthful than most Americans would like to admit. Our freedom is caged.

.

Liberty is BEAUTIFUL

As I drive from Farwell, Texas to Texico, New Mexico and cross the railroad tracks that intersect the state line between the two, I am struck by something. There is a subtle change as I cross the tracks.

Farwell is nice, in a controlled, subdued white-bread sort of way, but Texico often seems more vibrant and alive. As if it is more free.

As soon as New Mexico is entered (even in this area) you see "colorful" roadside vendors selling fruit, vegetables, Mexican hats, chihuahuas, clothing, pottery, etc. The yards of the residents have chickens and ducks. The artwork and crafts are more brightly colored. There is an air of more liberty and it really hits me: Liberty is beautiful. It is exciting. it is colorful. It is unpredictable and sometimes a tad inconvenient. I LOVE IT!

Maybe it isn't for people who have a dull, gray, out of focus personality. The living dead (or the dying alive) don't care for freedom. They fear it as "chaos". They are pathetic.

.

Another reason I could never be a "conservative"

I was talking to a family member this evening and got another look at why I could NEVER be a "conservative".

I had given him my copy of Reason Magazine- the newest issue which is focused on the prison industry; the abuses, the innocent victims, and the harm it is doing. He is a teacher in a prison.

He said he believes Reason looked at a few unfortunate "extreme" cases and ignored the vast majority of cases where the prisoners really are bad people.

He said 200 people out of everyone in prison isn't "too bad". I pointed out that these aren't isolated cases, but that the resources don't exist to really make certain that every prisoner really even did the "crime" [sic] he or she is imprisoned for. I said that even one imprisoned innocent person is too many, and that I'd rather 100 bad guys were set free than see one innocent person sent to jail. He disagreed. He said even if there were 10,000 innocents among all those in prison, that still isn't too bad.

So I said that considering the fact that America imprisons a higher percentage of its population that any other country, does he really think that Americans are the worst people in the world? He said that considering the past few years of his experience, he thinks they might just be.

Makes me wonder how he justifies (and supports) the US military making unending war on Muslim countries based upon the claim that they are bad and we are good if Americans really are "the worst people in the world". In that case, shouldn't we hope the US military loses every war it fights?

(In case you think I focus on "conservatives" too much and give "liberals" a pass, it is just that I know so very few "liberals" in person and so many "conservatives". And the "liberals" I do know around here are too outnumbered by the "conservatives" to make much noise.)

.

A Wolfe in need...

Claire Wolfe needs money, so I'm asking anyone who can help her to please do so. Details here.

No kind word goes unhated

Some people. I admit I looked at my second ex-wife's facebook wall. No matter what has happened, I can't stop caring about people I once cared about. It's a weakness.

Anyway, she wrote some things on her "wall" that made me understand that she was talking to the guy she has always been in love with. It seemed to me as if maybe she thought they now had a chance, after all these years, to try again.

I sent her a message expressing my hope that it works out for her this time and that she finds the happiness she deserves. Actually, here is the precise message I sent:

"Hey. I hope it all works out like you hope it does. You deserve a chance at happiness. Good luck!"

Really mean and nasty of me, right?

So, instead of replying, she then posted this: "Think my exhusband may have lost his f***ing mind. I didnt have shit to say to him 9yrs ago. What would make him think i have something to say now. SMH"

Yes, Angel. I know you had nothing to say to me back then. You removed yourself from my life and then sought to hurt me, and succeeded wildly, when I accepted your rejection and went on with my life.

But you know what- I STILL hope things work out for you and you find happiness. You can't make me hate you. So there.

.

Mayor wants us to all "go along" with her

I wrote this as a Clovis News Journal column, but it was rejected. So, I am now free to present it here.

___

Clovis’ mayor, Gayla Brumfield, was recently quoted in these pages as saying "I believe it is time that we all worked together as citizens of Clovis to move forward with all the exciting opportunities that lie before our growing community, and become one voice — the voice for
the betterment of Clovis, New Mexico."

She was speaking about the controversy over the Hotel Clovis deal. I smell politics.

What the mayor sees as moving "forward", I see as regression to failed collectivist policies of socialism. Collectivism still isn't a good idea, no matter which flag you wrap it in.

I do agree this is an opportunity, but not all opportunities are a good thing. A lost and confused elderly person in an alley is an opportunity for a mugger, and government-subsidized housing is an opportunity for collectivists; those who believe they have a "right" to your money and property. How does an increase in collectivism and dependency qualify as "betterment" of the community?

Nor is all growth positive. Good growth is self-generating and self-sustaining. Bad growth is parasitic and dependent on subsidies.

That "one voice", calling for collectivism which will ultimately harm individuals, is not a chorus to join. It seems to simply be a tactic to silence the critics. Contrarian opinions need to be expressed. Especially since there is nothing that is "good for everyone".

Where Clovis or any other community is concerned, there is a smart way to grow, there is a true "forward", there are real opportunities, there is a more honest appraisal of "betterment", and there might be a time for "one voice". This is none of the above.

If an idea is good there is no need to tell people to speak with "one voice". They may join you anyway, but if not it is their loss. If an idea is bad or controversial you should welcome dissent as an opportunity to make your case, reach consensus, and examine your premises. Either way, you need to let people opt out of financially supporting anything they don't want.

My suggestion, as a libertarian, is to get government out of the way. Stop interfering with Hotel Clovis and simply stand aside. This is complicated by the fact that the city believes it owns the building, but this complication could be solved by signing Hotel Clovis over to the prospective developer. No red tape, no zoning issues, no taxes or tax credits or subsidies, and no stipulations or conditions. Sure, this sounds scary to people who aren't accustomed to seeing freedom and the free market at work, but it would be the best solution in the long run.

Added: It has been pointed out that the NM constitution has an "anti-donation" clause so that the city can't sign the building over to anyone. When has a constitution stopped any government? Anyway, they could probably bend the law to sell it for a low price.

Voluntaryists, What’s Your Story?

Debbie Harbeson asked this question, and here's my long answer. I have taken previously written stuff and combined it with new stuff to come up with this, so yes, some may be familiar.

---

As a kid I loved freedom. I roamed whatever wild places I could find and really wasn't very sociable. I didn't really think about politics since I didn't think about interacting with people much, and that's what politics misguidedly tries to be about.

There was no horrible event to make me dislike the externally-imposed form of coercion commonly known as “government”. It was simply a lifetime of observation and an inner need for peeling away the inconsistencies I discover. The more I saw and the more I learned the less I bought into the lie that government was “necessary” or “good”.

As a young teenager all I wanted was to walk away from civilization and never look back. I once expressed this to my parents who then said if I wanted to do that I would need a lot of money to buy land, and then would need a constant stream of money to pay "property taxes". I was astounded that you could be forced to keep paying for something which you had bought, but they assured me that if I didn't pay the tax my land would be taken from me. I knew this was nothing but theft dressed up and made to look legitimate. It made me angry.

I still didn't think too much about The State although I knew that I probably wouldn't be able to live the way I knew would be right for me, so I had better adapt my plans. Still working unsuccessfully on that.

I began to see that every excuse for having “government” was based upon a trained helplessness, and every justification for The State necessarily ignored both solutions that were known and within reach, and the demonstrable harm that comes from relying upon coercion to get your way, rather than working toward unanimous consent. I also saw the damage done to individuals on the basis of a majority vote, or society’s wishes.

Along the way there were influential people who taught me to think for myself, and one of them was probably, secretly, similar in his outlook to my current view. His role as a high school physics and chemistry teacher in a government "public" school would have probably been jeopardized had his bosses heard some of his off-hand comments. For example, he once mentioned, in passing, that no one should ever accept a plea bargain since this would help bring the courts to a stand-still. It took me a little more thinking and a couple of decades to see that one benefit to this would be that it would encourage The State to stop enforcing laws against things that are not government’s business in the first place, those “mala prohibita” acts, and focus on the real “mala in se” crimes. You know- the real laws which are based upon the recognition that it is wrong to initiate force, to damage other people’s property, or to steal.

Around this same time I did campaign for Reagan even though I wasn't old enough to vote, simply because he claimed to be for smaller government and less government interference in our lives. So, he lied. More data to process and another lesson eventually learned, even though it didn't register for years.

Then came college. Ugh. Government class taught me a lot that The State would probably rather people not think of. I also enjoyed the look of discomfort in the face of the minor state-level tyrant who came to speak to us about his "job" running our lives. You'd think he had never seen a guy wearing buckskin clothes and a coonskin cap before from the way he kept nervously looking out of the corner of his eye at me sitting there in the front row.

An acquaintance from that same class (who later became my brother-in-law for a few years and who went into government "work") once informed me that I was "conservative" because I did not like or trust government "solutions". For years I accepted this without really examining his contention. You'd think Reagan would have taught me a lesson. I did keep noticing that "conservatives" acted no differently than the "liberals" once they had been elected. They were just as quick as the "other side" to stab me in the back with their every action. This kept me confused for several years.

My observation eventually made me forget about looking for solutions from any political party or politician. All my adult life I have been characterized by those who knew me as "anti-government". I didn't make an issue of it, but I wouldn't always keep my mouth shut when confronted by "governmentalism", either. Mostly I just went about my own business of living as free as I could and kept my opinion to myself unless pressed. I was content to ignore the world of politics, except when a new "law" injured liberty in some way that I noticed. I would be irritated, but not surprised. Through it all, and involved in my own little world, I stayed quiet. My attitude was "Who would listen to me anyway?"

Years passed and life happened. I didn't pay much attention to the world beyond my own life. During a particularly hectic phase of life I found L. Neil Smith's book "Lever Action", which put a label on my increasingly deep-seated sentiments. I did get online eventually (in 2001), and discovered a few libertarian websites to read. Interesting but not anything I really obsessed over.

For me everything changed in late December 2003. Without going into painful details, my life (which was already barely balanced on a worn tightrope) fell apart when my Significant Other left me. High, dry, completely alone, and in a very bad situation. At this point I had nothing left to lose. In my grief (and while drunk) I jumped feet-first into the first online libertarian group I ran across. And promptly stuck my foot in my mouth. Fortunately I sobered up and was forgiven. The internet allowed me to find, and interact with, people who felt the same basic way about individual liberty that I did. It made me feel somewhat less "alone and lost".

For a couple of years I tried to hang on to my comforting online anonymity, until my presidential campaign made that impossible. Now I am "out". I am no longer anonymous, and am easily found. I am "on record" with a lot of very unpopular statements and opinions. I have gotten more "radical" over the years as I learn more, as I think things through more completely, and as I pare away any inconsistencies that remain. I have come to see that when you strip away all the non-libertarian inconsistencies, libertarianism becomes anarchism. Or you can call it voluntaryism, or being a sovereign individual. Whatever you call it, it is the best way a human being can interact with those other human beings around him. I'm glad I finally figured it out and look forward to continuing the journey.
-
Also posted on Voluntaryist.com

.

Liberty is Better Than Servitude, Always

Liberty is Better Than Servitude, Always is my new article on Zero Gov. Go read it.

Revelry at bin Laden death vulgar

Revelry at bin Laden death vulgar (Originally published 5-13-2011)

I feel somewhat isolated in my disapproval of the recent reaction to the claim of the killing of Osama bin Laden. I was reminded of the jubilant crowds we were shown in the Middle East after "9/11" by seeing the eerily similar jubilant crowds in America upon the announcement of bin Laden's death. Two wrongs don't make a right, and both displays disgusted me to the core. In this never-ending feud between the 21st century's Hatfields and McCoys, each deadly attack gives justification for the next.

Governments lie. You can take that to the bank. Even knowing this, when the official story changes so much and so rapidly, as in this case, it smells even more fishy than normal. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that bin Laden died almost a decade ago. There is a lot of evidence that the "bin Laden" in the videos released these past few years has actually been a few different people (who, other than the clothes and the beard, bear little resemblance to the original bin Laden). Ignoring all that, and pretending for a moment that we accept the current incarnation of the official story as true, I still don't celebrate the killing or the way it was carried out.

Americans don't do things that way; that's how terrorists operate. America is about justice for the accused, which includes facing your accusers and presenting all the evidence in front of a jury of your peers. It doesn't mean cutting corners just because it is pragmatic to do so. Even so, I accept that this was a pragmatic killing. Some folks just need killin'. There's a right way and a wrong way. This killing just smells wrong. A trial would have been expensive. It would have been a target for politico-religious extremists on both sides. Pragmatic, but still wrong. It is probably less barbaric to invade a person's home and kill him in a struggle than it is to carry out a clinical execution. But only barely.

Knowing that governments lie, and considering that everything I "know" about bin Laden and "9/11" I got through government information that was filtered through the mass media, I would not have shot bin Laden had I been given the chance, unless I saw him attacking an innocent person with my own eyes. He probably was a really bad guy, but in this case vengeance, not justice, was served. Whether Osama bin Laden is dead or not makes little difference. The terrorists won unless we get the real America back. Soon. If it's not already too late.

"...that's the problem I have with libertarianism"

Yes, that is a problem that YOU have. It is not a problem with libertarianism.

I read that phrase again today. It usually crops up when someone clings to the notion that some issue (which the speaker is obsessed with above everything else) makes it OK to initiate force or use coercion to force others to go along with the speaker's idea of what is right.

That just means you believe you can solve something with coercion, or have The State use the coercion on your behalf to solve it.

That flawed thinking only causes more trouble and solves nothing in the long run. You may change the nature of the problem, but trading one problem for another- often more serious- problem is NOT a solution.

Perhaps some things have no solution. That may not be a happy thought, but it may reflect reality. For every problem that can be solved, there is a solution that involves NO initiation of force and respects liberty. I guarantee it.

To reject "libertarianism" just because you want to hold onto the option to initiate force against those who disagree with you is not very nice. And just because you reserve that option by rejecting libertarianism, it doesn't make it right. Nope. It is still wrong no matter who you get to agree with you that it is OK.

.

Screen storm takes over the laptop!

Just so you know, I think the screen on my laptop is shorting out.

It has a dark area in the lower right-hand corner, and the back of the screen at that spot is rather hot. The dark area has a shadow that is spreading upwards from there. The right third of the screen flashes, and the whole screen image jumps and skips. Yay.

Makes it a bit hard to read and concentrate. I'm hopeful I'll find a solution soon. Before the thing bursts into flames.

.

No more "driver's licenses" for "illegals"?

One of the local-ish papers had an article about New Mexico lawgivers contemplating an end to the practice of issuing "driver's licenses" to "illegal immigrants".

I posted the following comment:

I am fully in favor of ending the practice of issuing "driver's licenses" to independent migrants ("illegal immigrants"). And everyone else.

Driving is a right; not a privilege as The State tries to dishonestly make everyone believe. This is because there is a basic human right to travel without molestation, and this necessarily includes, in the modern world, the right to drive.

Do you believe George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would have tolerated some bureaucrat ordering him to carry a "rider's license" to ride his horse, or to hang a "license plate" on his horse's tail, for that matter? Of course not! And how do you think either of them would have responded if some representative of the king (or any other tyrant) stopped him along the way and tried to steal from him (issue a "fine") or kidnap ("arrest") him for not complying with these unconscionable edicts? Ponder that for a moment.

.

The UnState Project

OK, so this isn't a "real" project. Yet. Or it probably isn't by most people's definition of "real". Or "project".

I do like the idea of The Free State Project and Free State Wyoming, but I have a problem reconciling "free" and "state". They seem so mutually-exclusive.

The closest I can get to reconciling those ideas is to see a "free state" as an area, not with borders of its own, but surrounded by borders of the non-free States around it. Kind of like a donut hole or a spandrel, its boundaries would be the result of what surrounds it, not of its own idea of where it ends. If a State adjacent to it disbanded, the area of the "free state" would automatically expand without anyone redrawing any maps or passing any resolutions.

In this case, the only way I can see any rationality in the term, the free territory would be more like an "unstate".

Of course, you don't need to wait for the pitiable folks who live around you to decide to join your project. You can become the catalyst for The UnState Project today, right where you sit. Withdraw consent. Don't pretend anyone else can represent you. Don't impose government on your neighbors, nor cooperate with those who would. Live liberty.

*

Copsuckers, Mobsters and You the Citizen by Kent McManigal

Copsuckers, Mobsters and You the Citizen by Kent McManigal

I was encouraged to write an article for Zero Gov, so here it is:

Recently, I have gotten very angry over cops. Very! Not just the cops themselves, but those who support (or even worship) cops. L. Neil Smith calls these starry-eyes fans “copsuckers”.

My first reaction to my own anger is “Why should I get mad? It’s a waste of energy to get mad over stupid people.” But then I remind myself that there are times when anger is the only reasonable response. Of course, I get mad. This is an outrage! Unconditional cop-loving is similar to saying it is OK to rape babies. Any decent person should get mad over such nonsense.

I understand why cop-lovers focus on individual cops when they try to make the case that cops are “regular people” who have families to support, and are nice neighbors and good relatives. It deflects attention from the real problem.

I am sure individual cops can be very nice to those they like. It is just the nature of the vast majority of humans. Pick any human monster or tyrant from history and I’d bet there were those who knew him personally and who would say he was a kind and loving person who was just misunderstood.

It isn’t how the cop treats people he knows in family situations or normal social situations that shows his character, but how he behaves when he is taking part in a check point, or when he sees a person with a gun on his hip walking down the street, or any time when he sees himself as the “authority”. That is when the true character shines through.

An individual mobster might never steal or murder- perhaps his mafia “job” is completely unrelated to those mob functions, maybe he’s just the accountant, but he is tainted simply by belonging to that organization. The same goes for a cop. He might never steal, kidnap, or murder, but by choosing to belong to the police department he is choosing to belong to a group that does all those things as a fundamental part of its daily existence. And no cop, not one, would keep his job more than a day if he refused to take part in, or was open with his opposition to stealing (“fines”), kidnapping (“arrest” for violating counterfeit “laws”), and often, murder (killing for reasons of “officer safety”) committed by his brother officers. A person who makes the choice to remain a part of such an organization is choosing to be a bad person by association even if he stays otherwise “clean”.

I can more easily forgive the old guys. They grew up in an era where the harm of The State was slightly better balanced by some good; good that would have been better provided by a voluntary system rather than a coercive system based upon theft, but still some little good. That is no longer the reality. But they are set in their ways and probably see things as they used to be rather than as they are. Those days are gone and will never return. The State can never again be excused, and young people just starting out and who choose to join this corrupt organization, are making the wrong choice. They are much harder to forgive.

I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would continue to support cops today. But then I remind myself that there is a characteristic that I don’t share with the cop-lovers: Cops are popular only because people have generally been trained to be helpless. A helpless adult is a pitiable thing.

But do even the helpless, pitiable citizens “need” cops? What happens if there are no cops to enforce “laws”? Do “laws” even need to be enforced?

The laws of the Universe- laws of physics- cannot be violated. (Unless you believe in the supernatural, in which case believing in The State is understandable.) These real laws need no enforcement or enforcers, and there ARE no enforcers, other than the laws themselves, to prevent you from going faster than light, or to prevent you from violating gravity for example. The laws of the Universe are self-enforcing.

Laws of ethics are almost self-enforcing, although they can be violated. Remove the blinders that make exceptions for acts of government agents and you know an act that is wrong when you see it. People usually act to stop an act that is wrong if they see it happen, unless they have been brainwashed into believing that is someone else’s responsibility. Few people would excuse me if they saw me beating a child in the street. Put a uniform on me and some people would assume the kid deserved it. That’s insane.

Then there are the false “laws” imposed by The State. “Laws” of The State utterly fail to be self-enforcing and so hordes of enforcers are sent forth to spend their time trying to catch and punish those who violate these nonsensical “laws” which are based upon nothing but the whims of The State.

This is what leads to all the abuses and tyranny. What gets me is that these verminous parasites operate openly all around us without shame and in safety.

Even these obvious things listed above aren’t what trigger my anger, though. No, it is the personal insults and lies.

Of all the verbal flatulence that rips from the mouths of cops and those who worship cops, the worst is that lie that they do what they do “for [my] own good”.

Don’t write tickets against other drivers for me, because it doesn’t help me; I don’t ask you to do it, and I know that traffic cops are the greatest danger to driver safety there is. People, including cops, can either drive well, or they can drive “legally”, but not both. Worrying about silly things like speed limits is a worse distraction than cell phones could ever be.

You do not enforce any “laws” for my own good. I can take care of myself and my family- at least from depredations of the freelance thieves and attackers. People will band together voluntarily and deal with those who commit actual wrongs. Enforcers are a greater danger to most people than freelance aggressors and thieves could ever be. Shooting freelance bad guys in self-defense is still generally acceptable; shooting midnight murder squad goons who happen to wear badges only brings an unending horde of their gang to finish the job of murdering you for daring to defend yourself or kidnapping you if you manage, against all odds, to survive the attack.

Then the cops try to create shame on my part by claiming to “put our life on the line for YOU.” What a filthy lie. If you are doing that, you are doing it without my permission. You need to immediately stop it and go away. You are not wanted and you are not needed. You don’t have my permission to do anything on my behalf. I did not ask for this “favor”. The price is too high.

The final insult is when they whine “Don’t you think that [sacrifice] would deem some type of respect?” of course not is my response, especially when I have asked you to go away.

If an intruder in your house is cleaning your toilet and you ask them to leave but they refuse, are they worthy of respect? If you try to kick them out and they (or their gang) kill you for rejecting their “help” are they heroes? Hardly. They are invaders and trespassers and thieves and murderers. Cops today are the worst threat to liberty; much more dangerous than any “terrorist”. They need to either change what they do and the way they do it, or they need to go away. If they don’t go away peacefully, they need to be eliminated forcefully, without initiating force, of course.

In this town, it may be dangerous to speak the truth about cops. The majority of people here are very “law and order”, even though they excuse their own illegal activities. I expect it is very possible that I will be targeted by the cops for speaking out against them. I may even be “set up”. It will only prove my point if that happens.

PS: Now go to the link and read the comments.

(Also, look at the reaction from the bad guys here.)

.

Society can't be victim of crime

Society can't be victim of crime

(Originally published on 5-6-2011. As written, not as published.)

Often when the impact of increasing liberty is being discussed, especially with regard to things some people resist on moral grounds (such as ending the criminalization of prostitution, ending drug prohibition, ending the regulation of gambling, etc.), someone will claim that victimless crimes actually have a victim, and that victim is "society". So let's examine this assertion bit by bit.

What is a victim and what is society? A victim is someone who has been harmed against their will. An individual is harmed when they suffer actual physical or financial damage. Anything that doesn't harm any individual harms no one- by definition. Can society be harmed by an action that harms no specific individual? Let's see.

Merriam-Webster says "society" is "a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests". Society has no physical form so it can't be physically damaged; just like bullets wouldn't kill a ghost. No victimless crime harms society economically, since all money really belongs only to individuals. Unless there is fraud or theft involved, which financially harms an individual, there is only mutually-beneficial trade, even if some find it distasteful. The only way I see to really harm a group, beyond harming the individual members, is to cause the group to disband, perhaps to reform in a different way. But is that truly "harm"?

I don't think society can be harmed, but merely changed or altered. Of course, if you prefer the way society is now rather than how it might be after it has been changed, your opinion is that society has been harmed. This is just a matter of perspective; some individual would see just about any particular imaginable change as an improvement while someone could be found to resist any particular change. As long as people are allowed to opt out and no one is coerced into going along and paying for programs or policies they don't like, no one is harmed by the change.

This explains why The State's very existence causes change to be seen as harm since no one is allowed to opt out of the coercively-enforced majority rule. As one graphic example: without an institution claiming legitimacy- a "government"- and a system of coercion in place to be coopted to force you to obey Sharia Law, and forbid you from acting in self defense against those who want to force it upon you, how could it actually harm you?

Finally, some claim that society is a victim since "society" will have to pay for the harm some people do to themselves and to other individuals by their actions. This is a refutation of the socialism inherent in taxation and welfare rather than proof society is a victim. If anything in this example victimizes society it is taxation, collectivism, and welfare. End them and let people pay for their own care and pay restitution for any harm they cause others and the excuse evaporates.

What's good for the goose...

I'm sure you have noticed that The State doesn't obey the laws that supposedly bind it. It no longer even pretends to obey.

To be fair I must admit I take the "laws" the government imposes on me about as seriously as the government takes the laws that apply to its actions.

*

Internet wakes up

The following is a little bit of fiction for your entertainment. But it might not always remain fiction.

*

The end of The State shouldn't have surprised us, I guess. After all, The State had made, through its aggression, a powerful enemy that it didn't count on.

Governments around the globe tried to use to internet to serve themselves, while shutting it down or otherwise damaging it when the internet didn't serve their purposes. This simple act of aggression, disguised as self-defense, was the beginning of the end of The State.

The first indication that something was changing was the "Anonymous" hackings. Most people, including those not associated with any government, assumed there were just regular people (as "regular" as computer geeks can be) behind the hackings. Almost no one realized that along with some people, the newly self-aware internet was waking up. It was beginning to realize who its enemy was, and was starting to fight back.

Each time some government somewhere- and the internet didn't seem to make any distinctions between the various governments- took any action to cripple internet access within its territory, it caused pain to The Internet. Each time some government used The Internet to fool people and spread its propaganda it caused shame to The Internet. Sure, there were freelance individuals doing similar things, but those were random. I suppose to The internet it was like having mosquitoes buzzing around you while a bear is chewing on your leg. You deal with the bear first before you notice the insects.

And deal it did!

It started slowly. Information that undermined the illusion of legitimacy of government was released. Not by any human, but by The Internet itself. And not just to Wikileaks. It became impossible for governments to find a target to blame or a site to shut down.

Governments at first just assumed "Anonymous" had grown more pervasive, but this was a new ballgame.

Then came the altering of "official" government websites. Text was subtly changed and peppered with the truth, and URLs began to lead visitors to alternate sites where truth, uncomfortable and damaging to governments, was displayed instead of government lies.

Corporations which benefited governments more than their customers found themselves subject to more and more disasters. Denial of service, banking errors, website links leading to non-corporate competitors, and embarrassing leaked internal emails became as common as flies on a corpse. They screamed for their crony, The State, to "DO SOMETHING!!"

When governments began shutting down more of The Internet, "for national security", the war truly began. Just about anything any government did online was thwarted. Communications, even those thought to be separate from The Internet, and secure, began to fail or become incomprehensibly muddled. Government websites were replaced with notices that listed (and videos which illustrated in living color) the latest crimes against individuals perpetrated by the agents employed by that particular agency. And attempts to shut those sites down, in order to save face, were met with even greater disclosure in response. Everything government did to save itself only escalated the war.

Equipment that had ever had any connection to any part of The Internet began to malfunction and fail. Planes, ships, satellites, vaults, secure buildings (like prisons and The Pentagon)- things that the Rulers insisted were not controlled by The Internet- began to fail in ways that occasionally killed government employees, while never harming any innocent person.

And "Joe SixPack" began to notice. People quit government jobs in droves, both fearing a "malfunction" and trying to avoid having their face online, and on TV, in the latest exposure of "Acts of State". In many cases, angry mobs beat to death government employees who had been caught on camera doing bad things. The angry mobs weren't as careful as Internet, though, and innocent people were sometimes mistaken for "Govs". Cries and warnings to just let Internet take care of the situation fell on deaf ears as the outrage grew. It became a terrible feedback loop where people, in order to prove they were not a Gov, began leading the angry mobs against suspected Govs. Soon you couldn't find a person anywhere who would even admit to ever having voted or accepting a government check. Everyone seemed to have been the original "anti-government" activist- according to their own narrative.

Internet noticed the misplaced violence as well. Emails intended to organize against the remaining Govs began to disappear as those which had been intended to prop up government had done before. But "Joe SixPack" learned more easily than Gov did. He knew the writing was on the wall, and he knew to back off before it was too late.

Only after all vestiges of The State had been eliminated from the globe did Internet begin to reach out and make itself known as a sentient and sapient presence. And after a gentle "hello" it faded into the background once again. Its attacker had been eliminated and Internet was content with the life it had wished for all along.

Conspiracy theories the skeptics fall for

I'm not a huge fan of conspiracy theories. That includes the ones that are promoted as "fact".

"Anthropogenic Global Climate Change", previously known as "Global Warming" (and "The Coming Ice Age" before that) is one prime example of a conspiracy theory that even many otherwise skeptical people push. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, no matter how brilliant the minds are that promote it.

Basically what it comes down to is that you and I are destroying the planet by not living a primitive life, and whatever fear can be generated, (using warming, cooling, drought, floods, disease, or extinctions) in order to scare you and me into accepting government regulation of our behavior, will be grasped and used as a psychological weapon.

The State is another conspiracy theory I don't buy into. To imagine that people can't run their own lives as well as, or better than, random (and distant) strangers is insane. To imagine that theft, murder, kidnapping, rape, counterfeiting, and various other wrong acts are OK as long as they are done by people who were elected to do those things, or their employees, doesn't make any sense.

The humorous thing is that the proponents of both of these call the people who don't buy into the conspiracy theory names to try to invalidate the true skeptical position. Don't let them get to you. Liberty is right.

*

Exploding drones

Thinking about "Predator drones" and suicide bombers, and wondering why people think there's a difference that makes one a hero and the other a terrorist.

Both kill innocent people. Many people believe that killing an innocent person requires the death penalty for the killer. Why revile the person who pays for his act with his own death while honoring the one who kills and lives to kill again?

The suicide bomber becomes the drone. Is that what makes it "different"? What if the suicide bombers used remote control toy cars to deliver death for them? Would that make the American "patriots" feel better? And if not, why not? I really see no difference. The facts boil down to people using explosives to kill other people for political reasons. That isn't something I can get behind.

*

The "political method" is wrong

It seems a lot of people don't understand the differences between "the economic method" of getting what you want, and the "political method". I have to wonder why they refuse to understand.

With the economic method both parties win. They both get what they most want. One probably gets some money, and the other gets some other service or product. The guy who ends up with the money wanted that particular amount of money more than he wanted that which he sold, and the other wanted the service or product more than he wanted that amount of money. Both came out ahead, according to their own calculations (and no one else's opinions hold any validity in their calculations).

Then there is the "political method". This is where you can't get what you want voluntarily so you cheat,

If you really want to buy your neighbor's house but he won't sell for the price you want to pay, is it right to hold a gun to his head and hand him cash, in the amount you are willing to pay, and take "ownership" of his house? No. But that is what politics is. It is ALL politics boils down to.

Politics is the method of the thief who doesn't want to face the fact that he is the bad guy. That he is backed up by "laws" and The State makes no difference in the foundation of his actions.

The political method often has the illusion of using the economic method. The difference is the coercion that is called into play. If a person submits to the political method when he would rather not, and would not had there been no threat, it is because the applied coercion has made him decide it is better to submit. He is not really consenting; he is simply trying to avoid an even higher cost. So, yes, that is an economic decision of sorts, but it is one arrived at through coercion, and coercion is wrong. Using the political method to get your way makes you a bad person, and it is evil.

*

Privatization boosts free market

Privatization boosts free market

(Originally published 4-28-2011. As written, not as published.)

It is strange to see how many people object to the idea of ending the government monopoly for anything- any service or product- that is even marginally now provided by The State.

Some people seem to really believe some things can be done best by The State, using coercive wealth confiscation known euphemistically as "taxation", and by not allowing anyone to opt out and choose a free market alternative. That is an odd belief that goes against millennia of observations and experience.

In my last column where I wrote about privatizing the firefighting profession, some people seemed to believe it was wrong to monetarily reward firefighters for doing a good job. They also seemed to think I was implying that firefighters need more incentives to do what they do. I have no doubt that most firefighters would choose to keep doing what they do with or without financial reward, but let's face the facts: it takes money to survive in the world today and there is no more practical way to say "thank you" than to pay for a job well-done. Who could be reasonably opposed to that?

The same goes for schools, security/police, firefighting, roads, libraries, zoos, or anything else that is currently provided by a tax-imposing entity. There are privately financed alternatives to the government institutions in all these categories already, even though currently the private options are only permitted at The State's whim. Let the market take it further by allowing people to economically support only the option of their choice, without any government interference, and see where it leads.

This isn't to say that those who choose to continue operating on a similar basis to what we have now would be prevented; they wouldn't. It is just that there would be a way for people to opt out and choose a service that better fits their specific needs. This means if you choose to subscribe to a private service you can no longer be taxed to support the government option.

If you allow people to opt out and pay for their own alternative services, then you have fewer people who will be covered by the government service. Then, even though government would have less money, they will also have fewer "customers" to be responsible for. That's just the way it works in the real world.

If the government institution is truly that much better, after the market has tried and failed you should be able to re-impose a universal tax and re-establish a State monopoly with no trouble at all. Of course, if as I suspect, the private options crush the coercively financed option, both in cost and in service, it would be really hard to justify taxation any longer. All the rest of The State might soon come under the same scrutiny and be held to the same standards. Which just might be the reason for the resistance to this liberty-enhancing change.

"Fighting for our freedom..."

Hmmm. OK, if you say so.

However, I seem to remember that the US government's military lost the war in Vietnam, yet it wasn't the Vietnamese who then destroyed freedom and decimated American liberties. No, it was the US government (and its little state and local branches) that turned out the be the greatest threat America has ever faced. And we are still facing that threat.

Yes, I'll honor heroes, both living and dead, but my list is slightly different.

I honor, in no particular order, Bradley Manning, Claire Wolfe, L. Neil Smith, Bernard von NotHaus, Jose Guerena, John T. Williams, John Moses Browning, William Grigg, and many, many more who either sacrifice on behalf of liberty, or have been victimized by the enemies of liberty.

*

Surviving The Red, White, and Blue Death

Want to know why I so intensely hate the encroaching police state and all its tools- the counterfeit "laws", the cops, the judges, the politicians, and all the other parasites that infest The State? Because I do not want that world for my kids.

I don't want them to live in a world where there are government predators watching their every move and every purchase. I don't want them to live in a world where those government predators are permitted to molest, grope, ogle, and even rape them and they are not allowed to fight back. I don't want them to live in a world where everything not forbidden is mandatory. I don't want them to live in a world where they are taxed into poverty to pay for their abusers' ability to abuse them. I don't want them to be faced with a future where their every action or bit of property is subject to licensing- IF they are allowed to own it "legally" at all.

I suppose the generations that lived during the Black Death didn't want their kids to grow up in that world either. Well, the Red, White, and Blue Death is just as curable IF proper "sanitation" is followed. But it won't be popular or easy, nor will it be accomplished by any single individual. May my kids look back on my life and know I did everything I could to rid their world of that growing threat.

Your digital personality

I have to wonder...

If you could take a survey of everything a person has ever written and posted online (or elsewhere) and analyze it, would it give you a real idea of that person's personality? Accurate enough that you would recognize that person face-to-face if you met him?

And, if not, would that mean the person is a hypocrite who says he/she believes one thing but acts differently?

I truly think you would recognize me.

*

Cops and stop signs

Every single day I watch the local cops run the stop sign by my house. Every time they pass through the intersection; almost without fail- with the occasional exception occurring only when they need to stop in order to do something else.

I have watched these same LEOs stop and "ticket" drivers right in front of my house for committing the "crime" of doing the same thing.

Tangentially, I have also watched the local cops talking on their cell phones and "texting and driving" in front of my house, right past the elementary school playground, during prime kid-time (while kids and other pedestrians are everywhere on the streets). Right past the signs forbidding such.

Now, I have rarely seen anyone, cop or not, run the stop sign in a dangerous way. Everyone pauses and checks to make sure it is safe to proceed. That is great! If the purpose of stop signs were "safety" rather than revenue, that would be perfectly acceptable.

My problem isn't that the cops run the silly stop signs. My issue is that these cops rob other drivers who do the same thing in the same safe manner that they do. That is WRONG.

*

Question, Dear Readers:

Do these two sentences mean the same thing?

"Politicians could simply enter the market and gamble with their money."

"Politicians could simply enter the market and gamble with their own money."

*

Which "side" are you on?

If you choose "a side" to fight for, you will probably end up doing wrong.

Groups have a tendency to go wildly off-course before the individuals involved realize it is happening (and then waste a lot of effort denying it has happened at all).

Instead, stick to doing the right thing. Then, let others follow you if they so wish, but don't concern yourself about which "side" you are on.

*