Church, state will never separate

Church, state will never separate

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 3, 2012, with a paragraph, which I had removed for the newspaper's consumption, reinstated.)

Much is made of the separation of Church and State, but the truth is that while Church and State sometimes temporarily separate, on the insistence of those who get caught in the middle, they will never divorce. They were made for each another.

Church is possibly a little older than her partner, but she hides her age well by getting a face-lift every few years. State just matures and gets more efficient, sly, and paranoid as he ages.

Church and State grew up together. Theirs was a tumultuous childhood; both were very cruel as children. Church enjoyed torturing, even killing and burning, animals and people, while State focused his attention on people. Both have encouraged people to fight one another on their behalf. Both Church and State have always insisted on being supported by their neighbors, claiming that this was so they could protect the people from unseen, or exaggerated, threats. Except for some rather horrible tantrums, both have gotten better at hiding their natures from casual observers as they've gotten older, and even today most people will come to their defense.

No one knows when Church and State first married; it seemed as if they had always been a couple. They slap each other around a lot, and do a lot of shouting and cussing at one another- because it isn't a peaceful marriage, but it is a convenient arrangement that neither wants to end.

Church and State will each occasionally do something good for society, in order to encourage people to say how essential they are. Each partner has their supporters, and some people actually support both. A very small minority support neither, and throughout history this demographic hasn't usually fared well at the hands of the couple's fans. Yet, neither Church nor State has been very loyal to their ardent supporters.

No one objected to the marriage for many years, until a few people decided Church and State would be less harmful- to each other or to innocent bystanders- if they could be kept apart. This separation is opposed by those who want the couple to stay together in order to use them against specific enemies. Only the naive believe that this pair will ever be limited to bullying bad guys.

So, a while back there was a more concerted effort to split up the couple, and a separation- at least on paper- finally happened. However, it was only for appearances. The couple may live in different apartments but they are still "friends with benefits" and only give lip service to the separation when it seems useful. Most people try really hard to pretend they don't see the nudging and winking in public. But, knock on one partner's door and the other will usually be sitting on the couch, perfectly at home, in the background.

The truth remains that while you may believe the couple is separated, they are still married and will never divorce. There's just no real reason to. They are too comfortable with the status quo and gain too much from the marriage. 'Til Death do They Part.

.

Reaping what you sow

If I attack any innocent person, I deserve to be killed by that person, or by someone defending them. I have a right to defend myself from their defensive, actions, but make no mistake- I am the one on the wrong side. It wouldn't matter if I pinned a badge on my chest or if I was in Pakistan wearing a military uniform. The one initiating force deserves whatever he gets. Period. I have no legitimate reason to whine about "proportionality"- if I don't want to be maimed or killed in self defense I shouldn't attack.

I just don't feel sorry for aggressors who reap the fruits of their actions. Even when the person they are attacking is worse than they are. In fact, I find it very humorous when bad guys clash, as long as no innocent person is hurt in the crossfire.

Let them all arm themselves however they want, and I'll seek shelter until they have all "honored" themselves to death. Good riddance to these burdens on civilization.

.

"I don't support the military"

Sometimes I wonder if I should just keep my mouth shut.

Yesterday as I was relaxing at home, the doorbell rang. That's a very rare occurrence, since few people (other than family) will enter the gate to come to the door. I went to the door and it was a college-age guy from the nearest university selling "cow-pie bingo" tickets. I listened to his sales pitch and was just about to ask the price when he mentioned that the proceeds were to be used to help military families in some way. I politely cut him off by saying "Sorry, but I don't support the military".

He thanked me for my time and left.

I wonder if he had ever gotten that response before. I wonder if others feel the same as I do, but are scared to say so in this religio-militaristic area. If he had asked for an explanation I would have told him that I support the militia, but not government-owned militaries. I would have told him that "the troops" are not fighting for "our freedom" but are putting me and my family- and his- in mortal danger by creating hatred for Americans, and growing an unending crop of new "terrorists" every day. I would have explained that "taxation" is really nothing more or less than pure theft. But he didn't ask, so we left it at that.

I hate myself when I keep silent in the face of such assumptions, but afterward I always wonder if speaking up, even politely, will put me on another "list".

.

"Operation #EFAD"

Yes, just do it. I did. To scare the authoriturds and puppeticians, if nothing else.

I also have the paper edition, and while I don't agree with every detail of Bracken's politics, it should be a very scary book for our real enemies.

.

Breakfast of Zombies

I have an idea for a new breakfast cereal. So, instead of emailing Kellogg's or General Mills, where they could claim the idea as their own and deny it was my idea first, I'll put it all down here. And, yes, I know cereal probably isn't the healthiest thing to put in your body, but it's just an idea that I think could be very profitable.

What is it that kids seem obsessed with these days? Zombies. I haven't seen any zombie-related cereals. So, my idea is...

"Zom-bits- they're apocaly-cious!" Most of the pieces would be shaped like brains. Maybe some hands, feet, and other body parts/organs too. Colored pink (speckled with red). If heart-shaped pieces are included they could be red.

Now, write the cereal companies, send them this link, and demand they buy the idea from me and let the little pop-culture-influenced zombies enjoy Zom-bits.

.

No meaning behind Constitution

No meaning behind Constitution

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 27, 2012. Now, read it and tell me if the headline seems appropriate to my message. Sigh.)

I'm not a big fan of the US Constitution because, as has been pointed out by numerous observers for well over a century, it either established the criminal government we now suffer with, or it did nothing to prevent it. That doesn't mean it is worthless, though. I think it is very useful for illustrating which politicians and government employees belong in chains rather than on your payroll.

If a hypothetical politician or bureaucrat actually cared to stay legal and adhere to the Constitution, he would need to recognize that it would be safer to fail to do something that the Constitution authorizes than to do something it does not. I wonder why that never seems to occur to any of them.

I suppose the answer is that it is more fun to do things than to refrain from doing things. There is no rush of adrenaline in the power of restraint. There is no bluster and swagger in it. Scrupulously staying legal to the point of erring on the side of restraint would take away all the fun of governing for those drawn to that lifestyle.

Think of all the government activities that could not be justified by a Constitutional politician who knew that he would need specific authorization for each and every action he set in motion rather than claiming there would have to be a specific prohibition to stop any of his official acts.

Where specifically does the Constitution authorize the US government to prohibit the introduction of chemical compounds into one's own body? Where does the Constitution specifically authorize the federal government to regulate which crops are grown by private individuals, or what products people can manufacture and sell?

Where does the Constitution specifically authorize the government to run schools, interfere with travel, counterfeit money via the Federal Reserve, torture prisoners, or maintain "forts" in practically every nation on the globe? The answer is that it doesn't.

All those things are illegal for the US government to do- and since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, understood (at least by anyone less ignorant than the buffoons of the Supreme Court) to be illegal for any other government in America to do, as well.

But that's just no fun, and it's not as profitable, either. Which explains why the Constitution and Bill of Rights- which only applies to employees of the government by prohibiting most of their desired actions- will never be obeyed by government At least not voluntarily.

.

Panic

At this moment I am confronting my biggest phobia. I may be on my way to the hospital or something. I know I should go. And for me to feel bad enough to consider that means I feel bad. I haven't felt like eating in days- among other things. I have no money, no insurance, and I don't want welfare. I feel like I'm dying and I am scared out of my mind. I don't want to leave my 4 year old daughter fatherless, but I also don't want to die and leave her with a lot of debt from my hospital bills.

.

"Humans are flawed"... Yeah. What of it?

I saw someone who was trying to justify his "conservative libertarianism", specifically the idea that while government can't do anything else well or without harming the innocent, its "borders" are reasonable and good. His excuse for believing this was that only "conservative libertarians" recognize that people are "limited and flawed". Huh?

Now, this is a smart guy. On most things he is even beyond smart; he is wise. But here he has a giant blind spot that he seems to know is there and is trying to explain away. Yet the result is glaring inconsistency.

I don't believe in government's "borders". I do believe in property lines. I also recognize and accept that people are flawed. Including myself.

Do borders protect me from flawed people? No. Borders empower flawed people and give them more exciting ways to explore the depths of their depravity by violating others in myriad ways.

The only way I can imagine a "border" making a situation better is if the people "inside" had achieved a perfect society. Then it would make sense to defend a border to protect your society from the "outside" influences. But, then, if you need "protection" by restricting travel across property you don't own, by people who are not yours to control, your society wouldn't quite be "perfect", would it?

All people are flawed. All governments are comprised of some of the most flawed among a given population- those who think it's OK to attack and steal, as long as you do it "by the book" (or at least, while wearing the silly hat of government), and are attracted to that power. National borders are where these gangs of official criminals' territories collide. Sometimes that border is maintained by a truce- sometimes by threat. But, it's always just between the criminal gangs, not normal people like you or me. The borders are there to tell other governments that "These people are mine to 'tax' and control as I see fit. You use your subjects, I'll use mine!" Sadly these gangs brainwash some normal people into taking their side against their fellow residents. I have more in common with most "Mexicans" than I do with most "American" puppeticians and bureaucrats and enforcers/reavers. Thank goodness!

The claim that "right libertarians" accept that humans are flawed, while those of us who don't believe in "borders" don't, is ludicrous. It's a red herring of the stinkiest sort.

It just goes to illustrate, once again, that there is no such thing as "left libertarianism" or "right libertarianism". The "right" or the "left" in those labels are just an admission of the inconsistencies that are still being clung to- the areas where coercion, theft, or any other statist delusion is still accepted as valid. In those limited areas an otherwise "libertarian" individual is not being "libertarian" at all.

.

Suing The State

In cases of reaver brutality and other acts-of-government I love to see the victims sue the guilty party and win big. The only problem with that is that the guilty party doesn't actually pay for the violation- the penalty is stolen from the victim and everyone else within that imprisoned and milked geographic area.

It would be nice if there could be a change in the "law" to the effect that any government employee who is sued for violating someone pays the restitution directly from his or her own pocket. It's not going to happen since the bad guys are the ones writing and enforcing the "laws".

So, in this flawed situation, do we refuse to sue the bad guys; knowing they aren't the ones who will pay? I don't think so.

I say that the lawsuits can lead to unhappy theft victims who may eventually realize they are getting screwed over twice by the reavers and those who hold their leashes.

It is my intention to avoid allowing myself to be placed in a position where I would feel the need to sue any governmental employee, but I know that isn't always possible. But if it happens, I suppose I would still sue, and I won't blame you for doing it, either.

.

I want my descendants to live free

I want my descendants to live free

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 20, 2012)

What kind of future do I want my kids and their kids to live in?

A tightly-controlled "safe" future where they are watched out for and protected from anything that might harm them? Where human rights are thrown under the bus in the name of some nebulous "common good"? Or a liberated future where they are free to explore their full potential, as long as they don't violate the identical rights of anyone else, with no implied guarantees? Where risks are acknowledged, yet not given artificially-exaggerated weight? No contest. I want my descendants to live free.

When I close my eyes and envision their futures, I don't want to imagine them existing in a gray Soviet world, where Homeland Security (the American KGB) tracks and watches their every move for "their own good" and to protect the "Homeland".

I appreciate and even anticipate some of the technological advances that are on the horizon. However, unless some serious course changes are made, and soon, America is heading toward a strange future. One where technological wonders are in our pockets, our cars, businesses, hospitals, and homes, but we won't really be free to enjoy them. A future where everything not prohibited is mandatory. Where no action is possible which does not violate some arbitrary "law" passed to protect someone at the expense of everyone else. A strange combination of both the glorious color and the dreary grayness of science fiction at its extremes.

A "safe society" is an illusion. In fact, legislating security makes individuals much less safe in very real ways. It trains them to be helpless. It makes them believe they are incompetent to handle normal life situations by perpetuating the myth that "things are different now". It makes them think they have to depend on others- "professionals"- to educate their children, to protect themselves and their property from crime, to enforce contracts, and to know what to do in any situation. That is a lie, and it is no kind of life.

Any safety to be found will be real only if it grows out of liberty, which gives true safety a chance to germinate and thrive. Real safety based upon confidence, experience, and respect for Natural Law rather than a false "safety" based on feelings, prohibitions, and control.

Even though the safety won't be perfect in a free society- it can never be in any real-world example- a life of liberty is fulfilling and colorful. It is more meaningful. I want that world for my kids, because I want that world for myself. Thorns and all.

.

You've been robbed, but you got a receipt...

If I steal something from you, but leave you a receipt, does that make my theft not a theft? I don't think so.

So, how is it that government can get away with that?

They think that replacing your gold and silver with Federal Reserve Notes is a fair trade, but it isn't.

They think getting you to trade your liberty and giving you a receipt labelled "security" makes it OK. It doesn't.

Sure, if I agree to the trade, even if it is a stupid decision, then I get what I deserve. But I didn't.

Robbers broke in and left a receipt for all they stole and we are supposed to be satisfied. Screw that!

.

A modest proposal to prevent "bad government"

I think that if there is to be any "governing" allowed to take place, it should take place only under the watchful eyes of angry armed observers standing not more than 6 feet away. No governing should ever be permitted to take place behind metal detectors, or with armed security for the puppeticians being in the same building. The odds need to be leveled, and if one side has the power to destroy the lives of the other side, then the other side must have the same immediate power.

I think that would avoid a lot of the problems that seem to go along with puppeticians and bureaucrats. How many "laws" would end up being passed under those conditions? How many rights would be violated by government actions if that was a prerequisite for any government actions being engaged in? How often would "taxes" be increased?

Eventually it might even reduce the attraction that the sociopaths feel toward being elected to a government job.

Of course, the obvious conclusion is that there should never, ever, be any governing allowed. It isn't healthy or nice.

.

Is liberty a sphere or a spectrum?

Is the landscape of liberty a sphere or a spectrum?

A lot of people seem to operate on the assumption that it is a sphere- that you can only go so far toward liberty before you find yourself heading back toward slavery- without ever having changed direction. You can only travel so far north before you have to stand still to avoid going south. If they are right, then there is an optimal amount of liberty and anything beyond that is worse than pointless.

On the other hand if the landscape of liberty is a spectrum, there might become a point where you reach the end of the line and there is simply no more liberty to be gained by trying to reach farther, but the pursuit wouldn't be harmful other than wasting your time.

Wouldn't it be great to explore far enough into those unknown reaches that the answer becomes obvious?

.

"Better than..."

"Better than..."?

One of my ex-wives used to complain that I thought I was better than everyone else. While she was wrong about that, if she had said better than some other people, she would have been right, although I didn't want to admit it at the time. And, you know what? I still feel the same.

She thought I felt I was better than poor people who shopped at the dented can store she used to like to go to. She was right, but not for the reason she thought. I am better than people who are rude and pushy. Every time I went there, some shopper - not the same one each time- would elbow me aside to look through the cans I was looking at.

I am better than that. I won't shove people aside. When they did that it made them "less than" in my eyes.

But it doesn't stop there. I am better than people who steal. I am better than people who use coercion.

There is plenty room for others to still feel better than me. If you are still married to your first wife, or if you have a good job that pays well and gives you satisfaction, or if you are smarter, more helpful, more friendly... the list could go on indefinitely.

All people have the exact same rights. In that way no one is better than anyone else. But I'd be willing to bet that almost everyone is better than most others in some way. It would be sad if they weren't.

.

Accepting change

I had a bit of insight into myself that I decided to share.

I easily adopt or adapt to new things that I see as better.

I was thinking about this as I washed dishes. Yes, I do domestic chores. Anyway... not too long ago I figured out a more efficient pattern for arranging the dishes in the drain rack, and immediately began using the newer arrangement. The other (occasional) dishwasher still uses the old pattern.

In many other areas of life I have done the same. I may have been doing something the same way all my life, but when I discover- or am shown- a better way, I usually adopt it quickly. If it holds up, I keep it. If not, I may scrap it and go back to the old way, or once the "spell" is broken, I may research and look for other possibilities. Now, my "new way" may not be new to anyone but me, and my "old way" may not be the way anyone else has ever done anything; I am only talking about "new" or "old" in regards to the way I have been doing things.

I think this is why I am an anarchist/libertarian/voluntaryist. The old way worked OK for me until I started seeing the flaws, and then discovered a better way that didn't have all the flaws. So, I kept adopting "new" ways- tweaking what works to eliminate more flaws- until I got to where I am. Which will probably keep being tweaked.

I have also noticed that most people don't seem to let go of their old ways as easily as I do. Maybe they are more emotionally attached or something. This may mean I am lacking in some emotional component.

Maybe what I lack is unconditional loyalty.

That might just be the problem. After all, I tend to do the same in my relationships. When one ceases to "work" for me, I may try for a while to fix it, but if nothing changes fairly quickly, I stop having any emotional investment in it. I start keeping my eyes open for something better.

I'm not saying any of this is the best way to be; just how I am.

What do you think?

.

There is no consent

There is a billboard in the next town that shows a girl, passed out on a couch, surrounded by liquor bottles. The caption states "Just because she isn't saying 'no' doesn't mean she's saying 'yes'."

True. And the same goes for any other kind of supposed "implied consent" as well.

Just because I am not shooting reavers/cops, bureaucrats, and politicians doesn't mean I consent to be subject to their rule. Only a rapist would believe otherwise.

Besides, I am saying "no". Over and over. In language that leaves no room for misinterpretation. But, the rapists of State refuse to hear since it is not in a language that they comprehend. Only brutal, naked force would be understood by thugs such as themselves. They are lucky I am peaceable and my trigger is so difficult to trip.

.

Blocked paths and robbery

In the old days reavers known as "highwaymen" would block roads with downed trees so they could rob travelers.

Some of the intended victims didn't submit so easily, and some thieves died. Some of the surviving reavers got wise and realized it would be helpful if they could find a way to get their victims to stop fighting back.

So, now most reavers use speed limits instead of logs.

.

We all lose during election time

We all lose during election time

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 13, 2012)

I can give you a prediction about the next presidential election almost a year before it happens. Ready? The US government will win and America will lose. The status quo will be elected once more.

There isn't a bit of difference between any of the candidates who will end up on the ballot in the "possible winners" spots. Democrat, Republican, Republicrat, or Demopublican. They all stand for more government, more "laws", and less liberty. The only difference is in their individual angle of attack. They easily get this government-extremist agenda pushed through by fanning the flames of fear that their own favored policies sparked.

I'll even go further than that. I anticipate an Obama win. I'll explain why:

Republicans are too busy cutting their own throats by marginalizing and ignoring the only mainstream candidate who is distinguishable enough from Obama to handily defeat him in a head-to-head battle. You know the candidate of whom I speak: the only one Constitutionally-qualified for the job because he is the only one who adheres to the letter and intent of the document that gives the federal government its only permit to exist. That candidate is Dr. Ron Paul.

I have plenty of disagreements with Dr. Paul. Beyond the fact that he remains a part of the system. However, I do trust him to try to stay "Constitutional"; to act as he is legally authorized to act. That's something no president in several generations could honestly claim.

Whichever of the candidates actually ends up being elected, he will keep doing what Obama has been doing, only more so. On the remote chance it happens to be someone other than Obama, he will campaign by railing against things Obama has done, only to build on Obama's actions once he gets in office. It's the same story every time. Obama campaigned as an anti-Bush, but turned into a continuation of Bush- copying and building on the former's worst offenses as he added new offenses of his own. I expect no change.

But, this expectation gives a certain freedom. Once you see past the smoke and mirrors you can laugh at the show. Let the others chase their tails and tell you their insane and diseased trained monkey is better than the other guy's insane and diseased trained monkey. Look beyond the hype and see that they are all trying to get you to buy a sick monkey that will bite you.

.

"Keep it in your pants"

How many times have you seen the admonition to "Keep it in your pants"?

Whether in regards to religion (or other opinions) or literally a demand that you keep your pants zipped up so that "it" doesn't show up where it isn't wanted. It is still there, whatever "it" may be, but it's not an issue as long as it doesn't show up.

It's just a simple truth that as long as you "keep it in your pants" it can't really bother anyone else or be any of their business. And, if they insist on making it "their business" they have problems- and should be avoided.

I see it as an acknowledgement that "Bubble Theory" is right, and is generally understood to be right by almost everyone- until you try to look for a "slavery is OK as long as I only do it on my own property" loophole.

.

Liberty through a lens

I don't mind people seeing liberty through the lens of their own religion, until they start insisting that liberty is inextricably tied to that particular religious view.

I am an atheist. That's just me. I don't make any pretense that libertarians must be atheists. I know many who are not. I certainly don't call for any State control, regulation, prohibition, or oversight of anyone's religious views. Or non-views. Nor do I support any State endorsement or favor for any particular religious views, or non-views.

I stand up for people's religious views, and their right to hold those views, on a regular basis. Even though I think it is silly to believe in things that are beyond any sort of detection, experimentation, or objective observation.

But, I see a fairly common trend that disturbs me. It is when someone who views liberty through the lens of their particular religion demands that everyone view it the same way. Or when some aspect of the State only disturbs them when it ruffles their religious feathers. Such a narrow focus is dangerous.

Sure, a lens can bring things into focus and make you see more clearly. If the lens is the exactly correct one. There are infinite "wrong" lenses and only one right lens, and only a few that are better than nothing. Results count, and by the results I see evidence, strong evidence, that looking through liberty only through the lens of religious faith gives a distorted view.

Long ago I looked through that lens. I see more clearly now that it dropped away. But, what you see is your business until you start demanding everyone see it your way, or you'll have nothing to do with them. Too few of us care about liberty to be that divisive.

.

Bad guys prove most people are decent

An internal combustion engine only functions when the temperature around it is a lot cooler than the heat it is generating inside itself. The imbalance is what gives it power. All things that "do work" depend on an imbalance in order to work. Waterfalls, windmills, whatever.

I think the same truth transfers to social situations.

Being a bad guy only "works" if the vast majority of people around you are good.

If everyone is running around robbing and attacking, there's no profit to it. The bad guy would get nowhere. In fact, as the percentage of bad guys increased, the "success" of being a thug would decrease.

This is a good thing in my eyes. It demonstrates that the vast majority of people are good, otherwise there would be no benefit to being bad.

Bad guys try to short-circuit this by joining government, but even that only "works" for them because we, the good people, still vastly outnumber the bad guys. Some day the good guys may wake up to this fact- and on that day the bad guys will have a very, very bad day. Or, partial day.

.

Initiating force

I have once again violated the Zero Aggression Principle. And, once again, I am OK with that.

My daughter touched a hot burner on top of the stove and burned her fingers. I grabbed her, and quite against her will, forcibly held her fingers under cold, running water. Yet, even as I did it I realized that even if it were the right thing to do, I had no right to initiate force and do it. That is how the ZAP works in real-life situations, and is why it is so resilient.

But, as I have pointed out in the past, sometimes you have to do what you believe to be the right thing and accept any consequences that come from your actions.

I do.

Would she demand restitution? I'll ask her, but even after I explain what restitution is, I don't think she will.

And, she is OK, other than a few blisters.

.

Prohibition MUST continue!

This was to be my Clovis News Journal column for February 10, 2012, but it was rejected. The reasons are probably obvious, considering this region. Plus my writing skills were said to not be good enough to actually pull it off. Oh well. See what you think.

________________

(Imagine if the prohibition that is currently tearing our society apart were aimed at a different target instead. Please don't get angry before you read it all.)

Some people are calling for an end to the war on Bibles. How can these "soft on crime" types fail to see the lives destroyed by Bibles? To give up now, through re-legalization, is to admit defeat. The law is the only thing stopping many of our fellow citizens from reading Bibles now. Lives are at stake!

Re-legalization advocates claim the Bibles themselves harm very few, rather it's the justice system and societal consequences of being caught that cause most of the problems. Nonsense!

Bibles make some people "feel good". They give them a sense of transcendence; make them believe they are a part of something "bigger than themselves"; that they are special in some way. That's delusional and can be fatal!.

Think of all the families torn apart because a parent was caught with a Bible, or even printing out Bibles to give to innocent children. Consider all the brave BEA (Bible Enforcement Administration) agents and local officers who have been killed, fighting on your behalf, in this war. Each time they go out to make an arrest they risk not coming home to their family. Behind that door they are about to kick in could be someone ready to defend their imagined "right" to own and to read Scriptures.

Consider that the majority of Americans in prison first started down the wrong track by reading or trafficking in Bibles and, once assimilated into the prison culture, got involved in other criminal activities. You say their mind is their own, and what they put into it is their business? Look at the consequences of acting on this belief.

People seem to believe it's a joke. They put Bible-related stickers and emblems on their cars. They flippantly wear clothes with Bible-inspired quotes. Bibles are illegal, and all Bible readers and Scripture pushers are, by definition, criminals! If you support them you should be arrested, too!

If Bible prohibition weren't a good idea, why is it so popular? Bible-tests are now standard practice in order to get a job- no one would want their lives or safety endangered by someone who believes they can pray and alter reality. Do you really want your brain surgeon, your airline pilot, or the teen driver on the street to believe that? This is just too dangerous to be permitted to continue without society trying to do something about it! The war on Bibles must continue, even though Bibles can probably never be completely eliminated. If it saves just one life...

(OK, back to here and now. Horrible, isn't it? Think it could never happen? If you believe the law makes enforcement right, wait until you are on the other side of the law.)

.

"Tragedy of the Commons" at work

Anyone who doesn't believe "the tragedy of the commons" is real should watch kids who have access to an alcohol hand sanitizer dispenser.

I have observed it myself multiple times in the fast food joint play area.

I'm sure the dispensers are mandated by some stupid "law" in order to keep the kids from spreading their kid germs to other kids who have their own germs, but the kids love the stuff, and use it up about as fast as it gets replenished.

Each kid seems afraid that if they don't use all they can, the others will get it all. So they push and shove and grab all they can until it is gone.

And some adults think this can be changed and eliminated from human nature (or animal behavior). How silly!

.

"Immigration control"

Recently a post on the War on Guns blog gave me inspiration to re-address an old "problem". My comment:

The harder the govgoons make it for people to immigrate, the more it weeds out the good immigrants.

It's like "gun control" [sic]. The bad guys will always be armed, so the "laws" only disarm the good people (the dumb ones, anyway). Anti-immigration "laws" will only keep out those who really want to be "legal"; the gangsters will always get in.

I'm sure many otherwise rational people, particularly "Patriotic Gun Owners" of the sort that slobber on Shire Reave Joe Arpaio's rear end, don't want to see it in this light, but it will still always be the absolute truth.

.

Libertarians come in various forms

Libertarians come in various forms

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 6, 1012)

I've heard it said that getting libertarians together for any project is as difficult as herding cats*. Perhaps that is why I like most cats better than I like most dogs: I'm not terribly fond of the blindly obedient personality. I will admit I'd appreciate it if my cat would clean up her own gooey hairball messes.

I think one reason it is hard to get libertarians together is the nature of individual liberty. What is important to me may not matter at all to the next libertarian. While I spend a large portion of my life writing about liberty (because it energizes me), other libertarians are busy living their own lives in their own way, focusing on their own priorities, and most are not at all concerned with spreading the philosophy. And that is perfectly fine. I am aware there are areas of my life which would benefit if the writing didn't get so much of my time.

I recently sat down for a chat with another local libertarian and was struck by how different from mine was the path which brought him to this philosophy. Different experiences, backgrounds, and lives, leading to the same basic realization- that liberty matters and is not negotiable. Like every libertarian I have ever met, he was extremely intelligent, common-sensical, and stimulating to talk to. And just plain nice. The main difference I can see is that he isn't as publicly outspoken as I am. But that doesn't mean he isn't doing just as much, or more, to promote liberty in his own way.

Among libertarians, even among those libertarians concerned with spreading a love and understanding of liberty, there are differences of opinion as to which methods work. Some are still convinced they can "vote themselves free", while others see no evidence of this. Some prefer "preaching to the choir", while others enjoy stepping into the lions' den to try to show fans of coercion-based statutory "law" the superiority of voluntary action. Some think that it is a waste of time doing anything other than just living their life as they see fit to the best of their ability, and never try to help those who don't want to be helped. "Just let the wagon go into the ravine if those on board insist on staying the course."

Personally, I think there is a place for all those strategies, and it will take a little of all the above to once more make the world excited, and safe, for liberty. I'm not going to be too hard on anyone who is working toward the same goal.

.

* I actually had a guy comment on the newspaper site that " The herding cats comment was by the inventor of modern Libertarianism to show how easy it was to organize them." Seriously? He thinks that's what it means? Has he ever been around cats OR libertarians? I have my doubts.

.

"But you might HURT someone!"

I think I've discovered something about myself:

I'm not that impressed (or scared) by "might hurt someone", or "dangerous". I suppose that may color a lot of my opinions.

I'm not saying that I don't see people do things I consider to be dangerous and think to myself "That idiot is going to hurt someone, someday". It's just that my "solution" is never to send The State after that person, but instead to watch out for myself and others and do my best to keep them out of the idiots' way.

We all do things that onlookers would probably think are dangerous and that might hurt someone. If you can do those things without ever harming anyone, then why the complaints? If you do hurt someone, then restitution! Are you sure you can afford it? (Oh, wait. I forgot there isn't much danger of you actually having to answer that question in this justice-free society, where The State pretends putting you in a cage will "make it all better". Morons.)

.

Sacrificing the healthy to the sick

Sometimes, some people have a serious problem. That's sad. But it can be made worse when everyone else is expected to have their lives and rights tossed aside for the few with the problem.

One example is a peanut allergy. Yeah, it's tragic and can be fatal. I am sorry, but it is the responsibility of the person with the allergy to make sure they avoid peanuts. It is not my responsibility to protect them. I am not going to walk around chanting "Unclean!" so that those who have to avoid peanuts will stay away from me.

Another example is "gun control". Yep, around guns some people will do the wrong thing. That is NOT my fault and I resent being punished for things I did not do. I am not going to walk around chanting "Forgive me- I own guns!" so that the State and pathetically damaged individuals can attack me for being a responsible person.

Everyone has defects that they might prefer that others cater to- some of these can even be fatal. But it hurts us all to demand we order society around the problems, rather than expect those with the problems to order themselves around healthy individuals.

.

Learn The Way, Grasshopper.

Sometimes the contortions of those who fawn over The State leave me in awe. It's like some kind of mental discipline beyond what I am capable of allows them to justify the unjustifiable, and ignore the obvious. They've discovered "Gov fu- The Way of the Coward".

.

Disgusting authoritarians

I have read about a couple of studies that found that those who identify themselves as "conservative" are more easily disgusted. Interesting.

Not sure if the correlation indicates causation. Or, even if there is causation, which causes which. Are people who are easily disgusted drawn to "conservatism", or do "conservatives" become more easily disgusted as a way to justify their politics?

I guess someone needs to do a follow-up and watch young kids as they mature and see what happens to those who are easily disgusted in early childhood, versus those who are not.

The study got one thing glaringly wrong when it claimed "Liberals tend to disagree, and are more likely to base judgments on whether an action or a thing causes actual harm". Um, no, they don't. (I interpret this as bias on the part of the researchers.)

Which makes me wonder, what is the correlating factor that is tied to "liberals"?

I suspect it is "offense". I would like to see a study that looks at people who are easily offended and see what their politics resembles.

However, as we all know, "conservative" and "liberal" (or "progressive" if you prefer) are just silly names for authoritarian. Which makes sense. Disgust and offense are also pretty much just different names for the same feeling.

"Conservatives" may be offended by "gay marriage" while "liberals" are disgusted by gun ownership.

So, authoritarians are those who are easily offended/disgusted. And then use offensive and disgusting coercive behavior to try to force everyone else to go along with their own mental shortcomings.

.

Road monopoly and "their rules"

One place a particularly pathetic defense crops up- for the absurd rules that the government road monopoly imposes- is in discussing driver's licenses.

The government apologist will say "If you don't like the rules the government enforces for using the roads the government built..." Then the apologist will either suggest we stay off the government roads completely, or build our own. Both rather stupid demands considering the reality of the world as it now exists. But, if I have to either live with the rules the government imposes, in order to have the "privilege" of traveling on "its" roads (excuse me, but who paid for them?), or else the poor, beleaguered government will just have to take its toys and go home, building and maintaining no more roads for my "benefit"... well...

My response to the government and its supporters: So stop. We'll adapt. We'll survive. We'll be fine. You are unneeded, unwanted, and totally unwelcome. You don't enrich life; you pollute it. Go away.

.

Government can't "take the 5th"

Just in case puppeticians and their disgusting bureaucratic familiars forget, the 5th Amendment doesn't protect government, nor does it give the government in general an excuse to refuse to answer to you or me..

The entire Bill of Rights only exists to protect individuals from government actions. It does not exist to protect government from curious "citizens" or other interested parties. To attempt to use it in this way is wrong. People should have secrets from government; governments should have no secrets from the people.

What this means is that government secrets are not only wrong, but they are also illegal. Any ignored or rejected Freedom of Information Act request is a clear admission of wrongdoing. Any blacked out document that results from a FOI request is unambiguous evidence of guilt. Any government secret of any kind is illegal and a clear sign that the government is doing something wrong that it feels it needs to hide.

Now, you and I both know that government doesn't even bother looking for something to make its secrecy "legal", but it's good to remember that a government secret is a criminal act.

.

Just when you think you have things figured out...

The paper I write a column for, the Clovis News Journal, has been sold by Freedom Communications, and bought by a new company. I'm not sure what that will mean for my continued writing for them, since Freedom Communications is "editorially libertarian", but the new owners say they will have the paper "remain conservative".

.

Government's "one job"

If you've read my blog for very long, you probably already know how intensely I dislike "pro-lifeism", even though I don't personally like abortion.

I think part of the reason is a difference in how I view government. Government apologists often claim the main justification for government is for it to protect the innocent. (Even though it is so obviously incapable of doing even this one job.) I don't buy it.

I have no use for government. I don't even think government should prohibit murder or punish murderers. I don't want government to say it is protecting my rights. I have a right to own and to carry any type of weapon I see fit. I don't want The State to "protect" that right (even if it could or were inclined to do so); I want it to leave me alone. In fact, I want it to leave alone anyone who would try to violate that right (as if there were any real danger other than from government employees or pathetic monsters who got their original idea from government's prohibitions).

Government doesn't help any situation. The best it can do is stay out of the way and let things resolve themselves. Yet that is something too few demand.

So, even if abortion were murder, I wouldn't want the government declaring its jurisdiction over the matter.

.

Now is best time to do right

Now is best time to do right

(My Clovis News Journal / Portales News-Tribune column for December 30, 2011)

The end of the old year and the beginning of the new gives some people the feeling of a rite of passage. For them it represents a chance to clean the slate; they get to start fresh and try to do better next year than they did last year. Birthdays can provide the same opportunity, but almost everyone shares the same new year, while you share a birthday with fewer than three-tenths of a percent of humanity- if my math and assumptions are correct. That's not enough to get much momentum going.

Whatever excuse you use, the best time to start doing the right thing is always now.

In the coming year will you be responsible for your own actions, for your own safety, and for your own property? Or, will you attempt to delegate that responsibility to someone else? Notice I say "attempt" since you can never truly get away from the responsibility being yours.

In the coming year will you oppose all theft and coercion, unless it is done by people you believe are exempt from Natural Law, particularly if their theft and coercion brings you something you really, really want? Can't you think of a better way to get what you want and need- a way that doesn't violate anyone?

Next year will you be the kind of person who acts as a good neighbor regardless of who's watching, or will you be the kind of person whom others will point to as a reason they believe government is necessary? Someone is always watching, and your actions, even when "legal", speak volumes about your character. You never really "get away with" anything.

Will you be the kind of person in 2012 who sees a need and thinks of voluntary ways that need can be met, or will you instead believe that if something is important it justifies putting government in charge of it? No matter whether government does it well or bungles it beyond hope.

Will you make this the year you help build new tracks, for America and for the world, that actually change course, or will you let society keep being driven over the edge of the cliff by government, while you join in the rather pointless debate over who gets to control the throttle?

You may believe you have a choice, but that's a trap. If you believe you have that choice, and leave the options open depending on how you feel or believe, you have already lost. We are in this together and we can't afford to lose.

.

Why "Why Libertarianism is Wrong" is wrong

How's that for a confusing title?

I was watching the video "Why Libertarianism is Wrong" and since the video's maker has disabled comments and ratings, I thought I would give a little commentary and rating here.

First, the rating. Thumbs down.

We go through the same ridiculous things every time some anti-libertarian decides he just has to find a way to justify theft and attacking the innocent (or the other authoritarian "oomox-inducing" activities). But it's worth it to address this nonsense again.

So here goes:

First off Video Guy says that "what's right and what's wrong" are value judgments and that if people have different values they will never agree. That might be true for minor things like smoking pot, but not for big things like theft and murder. That is a strength of libertarianism. It leaves you alone on the minor points to debate endlessly. Now, you might disagree about what constitutes theft or murder, but not about whether or not they are wrong. Libertarianism takes away your "authority" to use force against people who are doing those minor things, things that you consider to be "wrong", that they do not.

Then, Video Guy claims that libertarians would force him to "submit to the free market for everything". No, we wouldn't. We simply refuse to allow him and those like him to impose his socialism on us without our consent. There is a difference. If he wishes to live in a communist enclave, completely free of market "pressures", we would support his right to do so, but we would not help him force others to be a part of his Socialist Utopia against their will.

Next he goes off about "democratically-elected representatives" spending "public money" on "public projects". There is no such thing as "public money" unless it comes from those "public officials'" pockets (and then it is still tainted by theft since that is how the money ended up in their pockets) and from the pockets of people who donated it voluntarily. Otherwise you are talking about spending stolen money, not "public" money. Which gets right back to those "always wrong" things, that even he would agree were wrong if he didn't try to hide behind the word "taxes".

As a part of this rant he talks about how private enterprise is claimed to be the "most efficient" way to allocate funds, but that asks "what if you don't value efficiency?" Well, then libertarians would once again allow you to go set up your own communist society as long as you leave the rest of us out of it. You don't even have to move to your own island to do it. Baptists and atheists can live side by side in the same neighborhood without forcing each other to participate in each others' group or non-group. Libertarians and communists could do the same- at least from the libertarians more ethical perspective.

Still riffing on the free market, he says libertarians claim the free market automatically justifies its outcome. "If a product or service can not be sustained through market forces, then it doesn't deserve to exist". Wrong, again. You are completely free to fund anything you want, no matter how unwanted it is by the market- all your friends and neighbors- as long as you don't steal from those who don't want it in order to finance it. Ask for donations; have a bake sale; start a religion and funnel all the "profits" to your cause. Just. Don't. Steal. Why is that so hard for him to grasp?

He makes a big deal about "intrinsic value" versus "market value". He says libertarians don't believe in intrinsic value. He is, once again, wrong. (How can so much wrongness fit in a 9.5 minute video?) Liberty- the freedom to act within your human rights- has intrinsic value. Without it you can't even choose to be a socialistic slave, as, apparently, he would. The individual's life has intrinsic value. Paving a particular road, on stolen land, with labor and materials paid for through theft from people who will never benefit from that road enough to make it worth their money to voluntarily pay for the road, is NOT of "intrinsic value". Yet this is the kind of things these thieves would "selflessly" support killing you over. How "nice" of them.

Next he makes a big deal over how logical libertarians are, and how others may prefer faith over logic. How cute. He then harps on how libertarians like to bash on anyone who believes in religion. So, are we now getting to the heart of his objections? Maybe not, since he says he is an atheist (he isn't since he fawns over the 21st Century's most popular god).

I know lots and lots of very religious libertarians. I disagree with their claims for the veracity of their beliefs, completely, but I support their right to believe anything they want. Faith and religion have nothing to do with libertarianism. It's like preferring blue over red. It might affect how you explain why you are libertarian, but you can be just as libertarian with or without it.

Logic will show you how the world really is. Faith may give you a mechanism for dealing with that reality. I don't care if you value faith over logic, but what I do object to is if you try to make up rules, based upon your faith, that you will impose on the rest of us who may not share your particular faith. Religion is the same. You can impose Sharia Law on all those who share your faith, but the moment you try to extend your "authority" beyond those who have the same faith, you are being evil. You can prefer faith over logic, or even insanity over sanity, as long as you keep it in your pants. Your personal views are your own, and not my concern until you use them to attack me or steal from me. Or from anyone else. Got it?

I'm so embarrassed for Video Guy. Had to put that in there because he just keeps going off on this tangent about faith, which he is completely wrong about, but doesn't recognize it. I had to look away from his shame.

Now he's blathering that "equality is not high on the list for libertarians...". Depends on your particular type of "equality", doesn't it? All people have exactly the same rights. Exactly. You can't get more equal than that. But socialists like Video Guy don't mean real equality when they use the word. He means that "it isn't fair" that some people get rich while most people stay poor. Boo hoo. Guess what. I am on the poor end of the scale, compared to most Americans, at least. Government meddling and welfare (not for me, personally) has made that more difficult to escape, but the market gives me the opportunity to change that. I don't want government to steal from Bill Gates to "give" me anything. Video Guy's opinion on "what's right", according to his own implicit admission, is to steal from people he deems to have "too much" to give to those he thinks have "too little". Isn't that special.

He says libertarians want to convince you of their rightness and that even their logic depends on having a common starting point. OK. So, he didn't make this video in order to try to convince people that his view was right? Why did he make it then? And there is a common starting point. Wouldn't he probably agree that theft is wrong? It's just that he equivocates when the thieves wear the silly hat of government and claim to be doing "good" with the loot.

He also whines that libertarians make a big deal out of being consistent. So? Consistency doesn't necessarily mean you are right, but inconsistency does mean you are wrong somewhere. It is a big deal- if the truth matters to you. If it doesn't- if you'd rather operate on faith- then why worry that someone points out that you are being inconsistent? Just smile and go on. Unless you know it shows the holes in your thinking and that bothers you...

Then he gets down to business and issues the first of his "challenges" to libertarianism, with the assertion that "coercion is not wrong". He claims it is not wrong to ensure justice through coercion or to enforce contracts through coercion. Well, now, many libertarians would agree with him. If someone has gone into debt, by initiating force/theft, or by breaking a contract, there are plenty of ways to deal with that, and some could be considered "coercion". However, what he fails to address is that the coercion is only excused by a prior violation of "libertarian principles"- and that's not even the only way to deal with it, or the best way. Just a possible tool. And, of course he whips out the socialist's favorite myth: "The Social Contract". I could at this point say "automatic loss by default", but that might hurt his feelings. I'll address this silliness a little later.

Next he tries to quibble over "initiation of force". It is very simple, really, and has nothing to do with "semantics". If you were the first to threaten, delegate, or use physical force- a very simply demonstrated thing- you initiated the force. You started it. You can weasel-word around the truth all you want, and claim "it depends", but you are only lying to yourself. It really has nothing to do with retaliatory force, either. If you are retaliating, you are probably initiating force. If you are using force to protect yourself or your property right now from an imminent threat, you are not initiating force. If you are retaliating, you are on shaky ground and may be seeking revenge. Understandable, but still probably not right.

He also is confused over what constitutes "force". Trespassing and theft aren't necessarily force. He uses the example, loved by statists, of "race" when he says a libertarian would claim that a black man drinking from a privately-owned "whites only" water fountain would be initiating force. No, he wouldn't be. He would be trespassing and stealing. I see no sign of force anywhere in his scenario. The Zero Aggression Principle is essential, but not sufficient. There are wrongs which involve no initiated force. Would I believe a "whites only" water fountain is wrong? Yes. Would I support the owner's right to make that rule? Yes, but I would shun him. Would I rule in arbitration against a "black man" who drank from that fountain? Sure- I'd impose a penalty of one zinc penny (or the market value of the water he drank, whichever was higher), then offer to pay it on his behalf. And I'd do the same if the "race" roles were reversed. And, if the owner of the fountain used force to stop the guy from getting the drink, then I would say the water and trespassing debts were cancelled by the used force- unless the force used happened to be excessive in my view- then the debt would rest on the fountain's owner.

He goes off on the fact that libertarians will use coercion (I thought he just claimed we thought it was always wrong- there's some of that inconsistency in his claims that he wants to make off-limits for us to point out) to uphold our ideas of property, but think it is wrong when others uphold their ideas of "rights and laws [we] don't believe in". So where is the difference this guy claims makes a big deal? If, as he claims, I will use force to protect X (which he doesn't believe in), and he will use force to protect Y (which I don't believe in), why not just leave one another alone? Libertarians are willing. Is he?

Now he gives the "Social Contract" its own special attention. Goody. So he uses a Stefan Molyneux video as an illustration. OK. In it, Stefan gives the example of buying a car on someone's behalf, and forcing them to pay for it, if they live in a place you own. Then Video Guy talks about how libertarians will say if Stefan owns the apartment complex he is free to do whatever he wants (I don't buy into that, since murder and slavery aren't right even if "you only do it on your own property", but we'll pretend for a moment) and people can accept the deal or leave. Sure. In a free world where leaving is a realistic choice, that would work. In the real world, however, the agreement gets altered without your consent on a daily basis (so that you can never know all the rules, and neither can those who will enforce them), and you can only leave if you obtain the apartment owner's permission, and only if you leave a big chunk of your property behind to enrich him. And you are still expected to report all your property to him after you leave so that he can continue to bill you for "services" you no longer can even possibly "benefit" from in any way. His claim is that The State can prove ownership of the land we live on through means any libertarian would accept. No. Sorry. A thief doesn't own what he possesses. And no documentation from the government's own records changes that fact. (Would I be allowed to write up, archive, and interpret all my own documentation for extraordinary claims of this sort that benefited me? If not, why not?) All government "property" was stolen from someone in the past, or was "purchased" with stolen money, and is only maintained by continued theft. That isn't "ownership" and any claim based on that smoke and mirrors is a lie. He "insists there is no difference" between that and private ownership. Fine. Then why "buy" any property if the government can "prove" its ownership of it, and why pay property "taxes" if you don't own it? Let the real owner pay property "taxes" to himself. I agree that no one really owns any real estate as long as The State can steal it back and murder you for not paying your land ransom, but that isn't proof of anything but that the government is numerous and belligerent and has more guns.

Then he explains that "redistribution of wealth is not wrong" in his eyes. He says it is not wrong to take property from the rich and give it to the poor. If that were true, then it would also not be wrong to take the property of the poor and give it to the rich. You can't have it one way without having it the other as well. No one has any rights that others don't also have- identically. Why would "rich" or "poor" have any bearing on this at all? It would have to be OK to take the property of any random person and give it to any other random person without regard for what each of them had before you "redistributed" their property. Sorry, dude. That's theft and theft is wrong. Now, if someone obtained that property by theft or fraud (no difference really), then giving it back to the rightful owner is wonderful (that's is what Robin Hood really did, not the modern "rob from the rich to give to the poor" nonsense), but it is NOT "redistribution of wealth" in that case. And, once again, the relative wealth of the concerned parties has nothing to do with the situation. Except to people like Video Guy, there.

His "reason" for this is that The State has an obligation to make sure no one is starving, homeless, or naked, and that stealing from some to give to others is how to solve this problem. How about removing the "laws" that create the situation in the first place? Let people make money without burdening them with licenses, permits, regulations, "taxes", zoning, "laws", and every other "Act of State" that makes it harder for people to earn money. And, then get out of the way of private charity to take care of those who still can't make it. Deflate the excuse of "I don't have to help; that's the government's job". Once again he appeals to "fairness". (I love the quote by Scott Adams: ‎"[F]airness... is a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments.")

Next he asserts: "You cannot keep everything you earn". Well, duh. You must spend money in order to earn it, in most cases. And you will be spending it to buy things you need to stay alive, and for things to make you more comfortable and happy. Keeping your money would be pointless, but if you want to keep it all and starve to death, that is no one else's business but your own. Why does Video Guy have such a problem with this? Because it isn't "fair". LOL.

"If you own a company, you have benefited from the education of your workforce". Yeah, and your workforce has benefited from you paying them for their work. Why is this such a difficult concept for socialists to see? No one is claiming that one gets rich in isolation. It is a web- all parts benefit all other parts, until you allow a State into the mix.

He says he thinks it is reasonable to be made to pay for things the government "provides"- things like firefighters, reavers, courts, roads, etc. Yes, that is reasonable. What is not reasonable is maintaining a monopoly where I am forced to pay for things I don't want, from people I don't want to do business with. Let me hire who I want to provide the services I want. That, my dear Video Guy, is reasonable.

Then he ends by pointing out the obvious: The State is not perfect. He makes the bizarre statement that if he "chooses" to live in a State-run society... wait... you had a choice? Where was I when that choice was offered? Oh well, back to reality. If he "chooses" to live in a State-run society it doesn't mean he believes everything the State does to be right or justified. No one ever said he did. After all, he is apparently intelligent enough to put food and water into himself, and to believe The State is perfect would indicate a fatal disconnect from reality. And, libertarians also never claim that everything The State does is completely evil or unjustified. We just claim there is a better way. One that scares the panties off socialists.

He says his personal preference is still for such a system, and that there is no debate on this; that it is his personal choice. He's right. But his choice ends where someone else's choice begins. He admits that if one of us wants a stateless society and the other wants a state-run society, one of us is going to be disappointed. But that's only true on his side of the equation. I would let him form a State and live next door to me, as long as he kept his little club exclusive and didn't make non-members contribute or support it. I wouldn't prevent him from doing his own thing. But, he gloats at the end that the disappointed one isn't going to be him. Nice. I guess in his eyes, might makes right.

What it comes down to is that libertarians would allow this guy to live however he saw fit, only drawing the line at his ability to use coercion and deceit to make others go along, while he would not extend to others the same courtesy.

Watching videos like this is difficult. Painful, even. It's embarrassing to watch someone saying the things that Video Guy was saying. I want to protect him from himself. But that would require coercion since he obviously has been corrected so many times that he turned off the comments so he could ignore the truth. He is satisfied in his ignorance. And, as a libertarian I respect his choice while insisting that he not force his brand of ignorance on others.

Because it is painful to expose myself to crap such as this, why not just let examples like this video go unanswered? Because I care too much about people, and the truth, to just ignore things of this sort. Truth matters. Why does it matter? Because, if someone believes the right way to clean a gun is to look down the barrel while pulling the trigger, I'm going to try to correct him before he hurts himself or anyone else. He can believe it with all his heart. He might have been told this from the day he was born. He may think anyone who tells him otherwise isn't being "fair" to his beliefs, values, and feelings. He would still be dead wrong. And, if I see him telling others that his way is the right way to clean a gun, I am going to speak out, even at the risk of hurting his feelings, to try to limit the damage he does. The truth matters- reality matters.

Added- A day has passed since I wrote all of the above. And I now have a slightly different perspective. The agony of wading through that sludge has worn off and has been replaced with elation. I would sincerely like to thank Video Guy for posting that video. It reminds me how weak the arguments of the anti-liberty people really are. And that makes me really happy. Like Malcolm Reynolds, I'd rather be right than on the side that appears, at the moment, to be winning.

.

Reavers everywhere!

Reavers = cops.

Recently I've taken to calling all "law enforcement" goons reavers. That keeps me from calling them things I'd rather my daughter not repeat. And the term is completely appropriate.

"Reave" is from Old/Middle English and means to forcibly rob, which is what "law enforcement" spends most of its time and energy doing. So, by definition, they are reavers.

That brings up a bit of historicity. The word "sheriff" comes from the Old/Middle English for "shire reeve" or "reeve of the shire". The dictionary claims that "reeve" and "reave" are not related words, but I have my suspicions that they are wrong.

I can just imagine some townsfolk, many years ago, saying "Great, here comes the Shire Reave of Nottingham!" He overhears this and gets pissed at them. So they wink at one another and say "Oh, no! We would never call you a reaver; we were calling you the 'reeve', which is totally different! Trust us."

.

Libertarian TV?

Recently I've been watching a few old "black and white" television shows, mostly westerns, on Netflix before I go to bed at night.

One thing that has struck me about them is how libertarian a lot of them are. People doing the right thing- not initiating force or stealing- sometimes at a high personal cost. I never really thought about the fact that our "recent" history was so different from what we see today. I knew that the early history of America was (imperfectly) libertarian, but somehow assumed things had changed before the memory of anyone alive today.

I was wrong. It makes me sad that people who grew up watching the shows like that could have forgotten these latter day campfire stories. I guess The State was more attractive to them.

.

Throwing stones in glass houses

People who work for The State shouldn't throw stones at anyone else's choice of a career. A pole dancer is more ethical, by far, than a school teacher who prostitutes herself/himself for The State and receives a salary financed by theft.

My daughter was playing on the pole which is attached to our porch. My dad, a school teacher for The State (in more ways than one), asked if she was going to be a firefighter. I said "...or a pole dancer". He said "I hope not!" I hesitated a moment before I said "She'd probably earn more money pole dancing."

Considering that I have never heard anything from my parents other than the suggestion that a career's worth is to be judged by the paycheck, it seemed reasonable to me to point this out. But then I got to thinking a little deeper and thought of the above observation.

.

Respect, or fear?

The State believes it has respect. Maybe in some ignorant corners that might be true. It is more likely that what it really has- where it thinks it sees respect- is fear.

Fear is not respect. Fear, if controlled, leads a person to watch for the enemy to lose focus for a split second, which provides an opportunity to blow him away. Fear often looks like respect to the bad guy. He would be wrong but he won't realize it until it's too late.

And once the fearful begin to strike back, those who have no fear, but have been waiting for the time to be right, will join.

.

"Anti-drunk driving" hypocrites

I consider most of those who claim to hate "drunk driving" to be hypocrites. And I'll tell you why (as if you had any doubt).

If "drunk driving" is so horrible to your mind, and you claim you'd do anything humanly possible to prevent it from happening, then you must support ending the risk of any legal and civil penalties for driving "drunk" right up until actual harm to another occurs. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

A person must be able to be driving and realize "Hey, I shouldn't be doing this" and stop and ask for help without the risk of punishment. Otherwise they realize they're (legally) better off to make the attempt to get where they are going without getting stopped by a reaver. It's a matter of weighing the risks.

There's a 100% risk of being molested by "the law" if you admit you need help after starting to drive (or probably even entering your car), even though you haven't hurt anyone yet, and a much smaller risk of being hurt, molested, and/or hurting someone else by driving "drunk". Which risk seems riskier to someone who might be judgement-impaired? Or, even to those who are not?

Get rid of the one needless risk, if you are serious about saving lives, or admit you just "don't like it" and don't care about the consequences of your advocacy.

.

"I don't like it!"

Going back to my previous post about the pleasure haters; I see them as suffering from the same mental lapse that many other people suffer from when they want to ban something, or claim "There oughta be a law..."

You can show them fact after fact that destroys their position, and they will keep coming up with justification after flimsy justification. But the truth of the matter is that whatever it is they want to punish or prohibit is just something they personally don't like.

And any justification beyond "I don't like it" is a lie.

It reminds me of the debates I have had with Creationists. Science and facts don't matter to them. In fact, usually they eventually wind up saying "I don't care what the facts are; I'm going to believe what I want to believe". That's fine as long as you don't impose your beliefs on anyone else, through "law" or through any other form of coercion.

.

Keep government out of holidays

Keep government out of holidays

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 23, 2011. I notice the paper bizarrely hyphenated Christmas as "Christ-mas" once in the article. Not my doing- and I double-checked to make sure.)

Merry Christmas! I hope you can take some time to appreciate all you have, and that you can spend the holiday however it brings you the most joy. I also hope you'll allow others the same liberty.

The winter solstice probably gave our prehistoric ancestors hope because the days which had been growing shorter finally stabilized. They knew from past observations that soon the days would begin to grow longer once again. It gave them reason to celebrate that spring would eventually arrive. The winter solstice was their light at the end of the tunnel. Throughout history different cultures stitched
their own celebrations, especially their own versions of "the light at the end of the tunnel" celebration, on this time of the year. The earliest recorded version of this holiday, from around 4- or 5000 years ago, was called "Zagmuk".

At this time in history "Christmas" is the name most commonly given to the holiday celebrated near the winter solstice. That's why most people use the word no matter what their personal beliefs may happen to be. Unless they have a specific reason to prefer a different celebration, or just want to be contentious.

Personally, I love Christmas. I don't care what words people use when they express good wishes for the holiday. Just as long as they are happy and friendly when they say it. I enjoy the interpersonal warmth around the holidays. I love the songs, the stories, and the decorations. I love the feeling of specialness. I love the light at the end of the tunnel, and I think celebrations are important, especially in the face of the encroaching winter.

That doesn't mean I think governments should sponsor Christmas displays, nor displays of any kind- religious or secular, since any money governments spend was taken by force from people who were given no choice, and it shouldn't be frittered away on things that some people don't consent to. Let the people celebrate unhindered; keep government dark and silent on the subject- neither endorsing nor obstructing any religion.

You have to make a real effort to be disagreeable at this time of year. Don't be twitchy if people say "Merry Christmas", or if they fail to do so and wish you "Happy Holidays" (or "Happy Zagmuk") instead. Just take it in the spirit in which it's offered and smile while you offer the greeting of your choice in return.

.

Pleasure haters

I saw a quote in an issue of Reason Magazine that just kept coming back to my mind. It was in reference to Prohibition (both the old one and the current one):

"The eternal temptation to ban things that give people pleasure"

I think it could also be expressed as "The eternal temptation to get pleasure from preventing the pleasure of others".

Either way, there are an awful lot of awful people who seem determined to try to make sure no one is having any fun. That's fine if they stick to being annoying pains in the rear. Unfortunately, the illegitimate institution of The State gives these perverts a way to exert power over others. What a messed up shame.

.

Respect for the law

Is "respect for the law" important for civilization? If so, then civilization is doomed. And it isn't our fault.

You can't have respect for something which is absurd. For me to have respect for the law, the law has to follow Natural Law. It can't be arbitrary and bizarre. It can't be counterfeit. But that is just about all it is anymore. The "law" is fake. No one with a lick of sense or any ethics at all could have any respect for it anymore.

So, if "respect for the law" is necessary in order for civilization to survive, 99.9999% or so of the "laws" on the books (the statutory "laws") must- absolutely MUST- be tossed into the garbage heap. Before it is too late. Otherwise no reasonable person can possibly have any respect for the "law". None.

.

Pinterest

Feel free to follow me on Pinterest, if you have any desire to wade into another "social site". I'm "pinning" a larger variety of things there than I blog about.

.

"Window shopping" at Baron Hats

Yeah, I know this has nothing to do with anything, but a lot of times when I would otherwise be bored I go to the Baron Hats website and daydream. It's my version of window-shopping I guess.

I see so many hats I'd buy if I had the money.

But I guess what I'd probably really do if I had the money to afford one hat from them is have my favorite hat reproduced by Baron's in quality materials and workmanship.

Someday...

.

Old postcard to Mrs. J. Proctor Moore

My mom has an old postcard that she found in- I believe- her piano many years ago. I'm just posting this so that any relatives of the people mentioned, if they happen to do a Google search on the names, might be able to get the information.

The postcard was mailed from Lamar, Missouri to Mrs. J. Proctor (Maria?) Moore, Liberal, Missouri and postmarked on January 15, 1946. Unfortunately, I am not certain of some of the names that are written. Particularly the recipient. Marie? Maria? Mavis? Marin?

It says (original spelling and all):

Tues 1000 A.M. Dear Maria (?). Sure enough colder this A.M I want to tell you I feel real proud of my work I did yester-d. I used the Maytag & it works fine. So- I washed evrything on the place that was dirty & all dried nice but two chroched rugs. I washed 4 woven and they were aft dry. So brot evrything in. have my ironing all done. I wrote to Norma (?) last night. got a letter from N.A. & Mable yester A.M. were all well. I havent been off of place. didn't go to ch Sun night too cold. Ora came in yester P.M.brot me some M (?) Im so thankful Im able to work. And may God bless you & yours.

love --- Mother

Elbert got home this am

.

Harm and hurt

I don't think "hurting someone" and "harming someone" are necessarily the exact same thing. To me it seems like it is possible to "hurt" someone without harming them. And to harm someone without hurting them.

Let me explain. I have been hurt many times. I have cut myself more times than I can count. I have had scrapes and bruises. Most of these left no lasting effects. Any "harm" was temporary. I got over it (even if it wasn't a happy thing at the moment it happened). I don't think those things really harmed me in any way.

On the other hand I have been harmed by things that left no physical damage, but that I will never really heal from. For example, I was abandoned by The Love of My Life a little over 8 years ago. That harmed me, in many ways more than any physical damage I have ever suffered- including a bike wreck that did cause lasting damage.

So, although I realize that to be hurt in any way causes at least temporary harm, I guess when I think of "harm" I am thinking of something a little more permanent.

Sometimes you might even need to hurt someone in order to protect them from harm. It's not a good position to find yourself in.

Now, that doesn't mean that hurting someone or harming them is not a violation of the ZAP; in this case harm and hurt could both be wrong. It depends if they started it. And, sometimes, someone who is innocent may be hurt or harmed by something you did, and you may still have not done anything actually wrong. Accidents happen. You might have a debt to pay in that case, and by shirking your responsibility you would then be doing something wrong.

Just something to consider.

.