Making Buckskin

Over the years I have had a few people ask me about making braintan buckskin. I figured I may as well post my "standard response" here. It's not exactly "libertarian" I suppose, but it can be a part of living free.

___

First of all, are you wanting buckskin or a hair-on hide? Deer hair is brittle and will always shed BAD, and it is very hard work to get a soft hair-on skin using natural methods. I will explain the buckskin method, but if you want hair-on, you just eliminate the hair removal step, and (contrary to what you might imagine) add a few more hours of very hard work to the "braining" and drying process.

Either way, pull the hide off without using a knife if at all possible. If you DO need to use a knife, make sure it doesn't score the skin at all. NO SALT! Take out the brain and save it. If you can buy any pork or beef brains anywhere, get a few extra pounds. (Save the strips of sinew that are on either side of the backbone, too, if you want thread.)

When the skin is off the animal you need to "flesh" it. Without cutting into the skin at all, scrape off all of the meat, tallow, fat, and membrane. (I always save the tallow and make various good stuff with it) A 90 degree angle edge on a steel bar is better than a knife blade if you have a rounded surface (like a smooth log) to lay the skin over. And then you can grip it on both ends to really push it down the skin. It's a very good way to build arm muscle.

After the flesh side is completely clean of all tissue and membrane you need to stretch the skin in a frame to let it dry. You need to be able to get to both sides, so don't just nail it to a wall.

Once the skin is completely dried, you need to use a sharp blade to scrape off all the hair. A rounded blade that is sharp and that has a handle perpendicular to the edge helps. I made my own with a big leg bone and a plane blade that I ground off round.

This is the messy, miserable part of the process. The hair goes everywhere and clings to everything.

Scrape the hair and the epidermis away. Be careful because it is very easy to pop through the skin since it is parchment (and paper-thin) at this point. After all the hair is removed use a medium sandpaper (or sandstone rocks) to sand both sides of the skin until it is nice and fuzzy (on a small scale anyway).

(If you are not in a hurry, the stretched, dried skins can be taken out of the frames and kept indefinitely, as long as you protect then from critters and moisture. I used to get a bunch of hides ready and then wait for nicer weather for the finishing steps, but yellowjackets LOVE the brain solution and doing the braining in winter avoids that complication.)

Then, once you have sanded the skin, take the skin out of the frame and hose it down to make it wet and flexible again.

Now, boil the brains in a little water until they go from pink to pinkish-gray and smell "cooked" ( hate this smell). Put the cooked brain -or two (more is better)- in a couple of gallons in a 5 gallon bucket. Make sure it is not hot or it will cook the skin. Lukewarm is OK. Stick the skin in the solution and get it very saturated. Five minutes or so, with you stirring it around in the solution, should be good.

Take the skin out and wring it out. Put it back in the solution, saturate, then wring it out again. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. The biggest mistake I used to make was not repeating this step enough. I have never done it too much but have not "brained" it enough lots of times. I would put it in the brain solution and wring it out at least 5 or 6 times, and 10 or 12 would be better.

Now, you can either put the skin back in the frame, or you can work it by hand. Either way you want to pull, stretch, twist, tug and otherwise abuse the skin until it is dry. Do not stop until it is totally dry or you will have hard spots in the hide. You will notice it getting whiter as it dries and stretches, and it will start to fluff up. Once it is dry, it should feel like thick, luxurious flannel, and be an off-white color.

Now comes the smoking. This gives it its color, its moth-proofing, and its ability to not be destroyed by water. Find rotten "punky" wood. It should be crumbly. It doesn't matter if it is a little damp.

Sew or staple the skin into a bag shape. You can put two skins together to save time and trouble. Just try to make sure there are no dead spaces where smoke can't go, and stitch any holes closed. For safety's sake, I'd also sew a sleeve of cloth onto the mouth of the skin bag so that the skins will be farther from the fire while smoking.

You will need to make a small fire and let it burn down to coals. If you can make it somewhere that you can have a small chimney or pipe, and something above it to hang the skins from, it is easier. When the fire has burned down to coals, hang the skin bag over the coals, trying to seal around the fire, with the cloth bag or the edge of your skin bag, so that you can direct the smoke up into the bag and force it to go through the skin.

Then toss on the punky wood and seal every thing up, but keep an eye to make sure the fire doesn't flame up again. You want smoke, not flame. (if it does flame, just pull the bag off of the fire until the flame dies). Let it smoke until you see brown color soaking through the skin. Remember that any spot where you didn't get all the membrane or epidermis off will not get good smoke penetration as fast as the rest. And, anywhere the skin bag touches itself will also not be getting enough smoke, so keep adjusting as it smokes. The browner you let it get, the better the color will last. (Most of my stuff has lost most of its color now, although it still has the protective qualities) Then, turn the bag inside out and smoke the other side in the same way for a while. And you are finished. If you saved the sinew from alongside the deer's spine you even have your thread to use to make some nice things.

If you have any questions about things that didn't seem clear, make a comment and I'll try to answer them and insert the clarifications in the body of the post.

.

Libertarianism offers contentment

Libertarianism offers contentment

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 2, 2012)

Life. Family. Friends. Those are things that really matter. At least, to me. I hope those are the things that really matter to you, too, regardless of where you might place yourself on the political grid, or the antiquated (and never very accurate) "left/right" political spectrum.

The reason I embraced libertarianism, after I discovered there was a name for the way I had always pretty much believed anyway, was that it enriches life's important things more than the other political ideologies do.

For years, from a position of ignorance due to not taking the time to study and think, I held on to some "yes, buts"- where choosing to respect the liberty of the individual frightened or confused me.

Then I began to discover that the few reservations I managed to excuse crumbled when exposed to experience, rational thought, and the ethical treatment of others as my equal where rights were concerned. Live and let live. Instead of uncertainty and confusion, I was surprised to find contentment.

It made relationships easier, even when there were philosophical disagreements. No one is ultimately responsible for the life and choices of another, even though you may want to help. Most people have enough difficulties running their own life, and can't handle the added burden of running someone else's life, too. Anything more than friendly advice, and an explanation of any boundaries involved, is harmful to any relationship. My family and friends, and yours, can make the right decisions for themselves and advice should never be presented as an order.

I see politics as an attempt to get along with people you don't like. Yet, as long as other people don't believe they have the right or authority to take your property, your labor, or your volition from you without your consent, there really isn't much of a reason to dislike them. Only the twisted "mainstream" notion of politics makes this barbarous behavior look legitimate.

Enjoy your life, family, and friends, and trust them to run their own lives. Give that same trust to those you don't know; even those you believe you have nothing in common with. As long as you point out, and defend, your boundaries with effective determination from all usurpers, you should get along fine. Then you have more time and energy for the important things.

.

April 1st

I don't really care much for April Fools Day pranks. Most are rather cruel, at least emotionally. Tends to make me not believe anything I hear throughout the entire day. Obama and his military and enforcers could finally start the roundup and I probably wouldn't heed any warnings, believing them to be pranks. "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind.

Then, on the other hand, I heard someone refer to today as "Atheist's Day". Being one, I'm not sure whether I should feel honored to have a day (kind of like April 19th- "Patriot's Day"), or whether it should be insulting that something which should be so normal needs a "day".

And, I don't know if it was designated by atheists or by non-atheists as a way to associate "All Fools' Day" with atheism. And I'm not concerned enough either way to look it up.

So, I'm going outside to grub around in the dirt and do other Kentish things. Later...

.

At a loss for words... almost

I just found out that someone I know, who has admitted to me that she used a guy to get pregnant (and then ditched him long before the baby was even born), has been getting "child support" from him. To me that is about the same depth of wrongness as robbing a guy in a parking lot.

As wrong as I feel it was for her to use him to get pregnant (without his informed consent) in the first place, that was small potatoes to then turning around and robbing him. I just can't see this in any other light.

Maybe in a few isolated cases "child support" is justified. In a case like this- no way.

OK, so that is just my opinion, but it sure made my estimation of the person's character crash through the floor. No, this person makes no pretense of being a libertarian, but sometimes I am still shocked at how low non-libertarians can stoop.

.

Homeschooling Rocks (and unschooling is even more awesome!)

Here's another one of those infographics/ads. This one didn't ask me to post it, but I have seen it a couple of different places and I really like it.. so:


Created by: College At Home

People change out of self interest

People change out of self interest

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 24, 2012)

I can't imagine how anyone could be considered to be different in any way that matters- better or worse- just through an accident of birth. No one chooses their skin color or which government claims the territory where they were born. To use either of those to evaluate anyone is absurd, as is the act of judging someone based upon the language they speak. Those things don't figure into inalienable human rights in the least way.

Notice that even those who wrote the Constitution never made the claim that the rights enumerated therein were contingent upon being a citizen of America. They were human rights. They exist in every human the world over just by virtue of being born human. These identical rights exist whether the local government respects them or violates them.

Putting up artificial barriers between yourself and others you consider to be different only hurts you. When you act as though it is "us against them" it makes people defensive. When you demand they change to be what you want, they will usually dig in their heels and refuse. You would do the same.

There are legitimate yardsticks you can use to judge others, if you want to do that. I have no objection to judging people based upon their actions. If they steal or attack the innocent they are not my friend no matter what other traits they may have in common with me. The behavior matters; nothing else does.

Of course, one of the inalienable rights all humans share is the right to associate only with those of your own choosing- at least on your own property. For any reason or no reason at all. You can also hate anyone for any reason, as long as you don't act on that hatred by violating the other person's rights. To make "laws" to the contrary may be well-intentioned, but it doesn't work out well because of the resistance to a "demanded change", as mentioned above.

A better way is to let people do business with whomever they wish, including allowing them to expose themselves as narrow-minded bigots if that is what they want to do. After all, you then have the right to shun them, too. And by eliminating a segment of their potential acquaintances they are hurting themselves and opening up opportunities for the rest of us to step in with welcoming arms. In the long run, self-interest will change more people than anything else.


.

May I draw your attention to- Abortion Wars!

No, it seriously isn't as bad as all that.

If you enjoy "The Abortion Debate", you might find the comments on this post ... "interes-taining".

I never intended that particular post to become the focus of so many comments; I actually thought it was rather trivial- a "throw away".

After all, there have been so many other posts on that topic that I thought had more to say. Whatever.

Read the comment exchange and decide if I am full of ... "it", or if I addressed the points adequately. Anyway, I would like to thank "itor" for the engaging debate, even if we are not going to convince each other of anything. At least it keeps me thinking.

.

Relax and enjoy

I must be an odd character.

A couple of nights ago, after coming home from a long, hard day, there was a party going on a few houses away. Loud bass thumps, and loud singing. In Spanish. It was happy, bouncy music with an exotic feel. It made me feel good.

My daughter's mom, on the other hand, immediately started wondering aloud why no one had called the cops on them yet. Not that she was considering it, but that was still her first thought. It had not occurred to me that anyone would react to the party sounds like that. Until she brought it up.

There have been other things like that. If someone does something that annoys me (yes, it is very possible), I don't think of calling the cops or shoving the "law" in their face. I either speak to them myself, or I "suck it up" and realize this is part of living in town, and deal with it however I can. If it is an actual, credible threat, then I might take matters into my own hands.

Anyway, that evening I ended up sitting out in the yard enjoying the music for a while. I think others might benefit from relaxing, and just enjoying the moment, too.

.

Trayvon Martin killing

I don't know- I wasn't there.

There have been times I felt threatened by a person I assumed to be "un-armed" (but you can never be positive of that point, can you?). Had that person made a furtive move, I might have shot them. That's not the time for hesitation if you suspect your life is at risk.

I haven't read a lot about the case because everything seems so hyperbolic. But, regardless of anything I might read I wasn't there. Maybe it was murder, maybe it was a reaction to a credible perceived threat. Anything more I might say would be speculation and assumption.

.

Did you feel the globe warming?

So, NASA has announced that the recent solar storms heated up Earth's upper atmosphere with enough energy to power every home in New York City for 2 years. Put in perspective, that's not a lot compared to the amount of heat released/reflected by the planet daily, and supposedly none of that added heat reached us down here on the surface, but still...

The real Climate Deniers claim that human-released CO2 is a larger factor in the heating of the planet than the sun?

I read a lot of skeptical sciency stuff. Even the "mostly libertarian" Michael Shermer speaks as if Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a simple, proved fact- to be accepted now without the slightest bit of skepticism or doubt. No questions allowed.

He doesn't know that. Neither do I. But I am still open to new information either way. And, no matter what, I know "global warming" doesn't trump property rights.

.

Does "noon" make you seasick?

Yeah, this has nothing to do with anything, but for some reason I worked on this a lot yesterday.

The thing is, I still think about how bizarre "daylight savings time", and the government's encouragement that we follow it, is. (Lest you think otherwise, I have no problem with "standardized" time zones. It's the intentional screwing up of those time zones that bewilders and frustrates me.) I've mostly gotten adjusted, but I can't help feeling that the clock is very wrong when I look at it. Which brings discomfort, which spurs me to action.

Then, I do things like watch the sky to see when the sun is actually at its zenith and discover it's even worse than I thought. The clocks around here are now 2 hours early, according to the sun. That's right- when the sun is at its highest point in the sky, which is known as "noon", the clocks say it is 2PM.

So, using Wolfram/Alpha I checked "solar noon" for this location on the 6th and 21st of every month. I was happy to see that their data matched the observations I have recorded in the past. I was worried about that because if it hadn't matched, I would trust my observations rather than their data, and then I would have been yelled at (figuratively) for ignoring authority (like when I tell people that the dictionary definition of "anarchy" is wrong).

This graph that I posted is actually only the starting point. I copied it and made graphs stretched over 2 years (yes, solar noon stays consistent over at least small numbers of years; from my previous observations and cross checking by plugging different years into Wolfram/Alpha), and graphs where I marked the peaks and troughs, and marked the solstices and equinoxes. And lots of lines connecting lots of different data points. Looking at the patterns that were revealed.

It makes me curious about the main pattern. Why does solar noon wander up and down around the year, with two peaks and two troughs sandwiched between the solstices and equinoxes? (Update: Because-- in part-- the Earth's orbit is eliptical.) I could research it by seeing what others have to say, but that would be as boring as "labs" in school where the exact same "experiment" had been done millions of times before, and everyone knew what the results would be. Yawn.

Anyway, I will keep fiddling with it whenever the urge strikes me. And, I will still wonder why some "genius" decided that government had a better idea of what clocks should be set to.

Added: I have discovered this graph is called The Equation of Time. 

.

Libertarian ideals still hold up

Libertarian ideals still hold up

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 17, 2012)

I am constantly re-examining my beliefs and principles. All of them, not just libertarianism.

Mentally I try to look at them from every possible angle and twist them inside-out to see if there is a possibility I could be wrong and libertarianism isn't the most ethical philosophy which has ever been discovered for relating to all other people. Sometimes I am very unhappy at having to wade through arguments that seem abhorrent to me, from people who will try to justify every horror imaginable just to manipulate society into what they believe it should be, or to excuse terrible things they want to be able to do to others without a guilty conscience. But it is necessary for my own peace of mind to delve into the dragon's lair in order to find the truth.

If externally-imposed government (rather than self-government/"self control") really is a good idea, and if The State is really the right way to impose that government, I don't want to be stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the right thing.

If natural human rights don't really exist, as some claim, yet somehow there still exists a "right to govern" that can be claimed or delegated, I would want to know it. If it really is wrong for you and me to be responsible for the defense of our own lives and property; that we should leave that to the "professionals", I want to do the right thing. If it really is necessary to sacrifice the individual and his property for "the common good", as in the various wealth-redistribution schemes we see at work, then why fight it? If it really is appropriate to kidnap and kill people for their own good- to prevent them from harming themselves- then it's time to accept it.

So far I have not been able to twist things enough that coercion or "violence against the non-violent" becomes right, and theft becomes something other than theft if done by a government employee. Every argument to that effect I have ever encountered is so full of holes and inconsistencies that it falls apart as soon as you begin to examine it. But I keep looking.

So far, only the libertarian idea- that it is wrong to attack the innocent or steal, and your position in society changes nothing in that regard- holds up to scrutiny.

I'll let you know if anything ever changes, because I'd rather be embarrassed at having to eat my words than to be wrong and refuse to accept it.

.

The "Top 100" List

Click on the graphic to see:

According to The Humble Libertarian, anyway.

Personally, I wouldn't consider all of those listed to be "libertarian" at all (probably, especially, all the LP sites), and I can think of several that are much better that weren't included. Still, it might be good to check out all those blogs and websites and form your own opinion.

And, I'm certainly not going to try to make my own "top 100" list. Just too subjective, and would vary according to my mood and what day it is.

.

Food Stamps and other handouts

In the midst of a discussion of unrelated subjects with someone dear to me, I was called a "hypocrite" and stubborn" and told I should just get over my "pride" because I won't accept food stamps, since I would probably "qualify" for them. And, it's not even that I or my child go unfed, it's just that we don't have money for some of life's unnecessary things.

The person who made that comment to me is on food stamps. And, I didn't criticize her for it; just explained why I won't.

And, because of this I was denigrated.

I realize it is probably because the things I said made the other person feel bad about themselves. But, like I say, I told her I am not saying anything about anyone else or the choices they make. I am just saying what I will not do, due to my understanding of the situation. I don't know how I can get any less judgmental than that.

(I also got a notice today from the hospital that said I was approved for "assistance" on my recent hospital adventure. No thanks. I didn't ask for it and don't really appreciate the unsolicited offer. But, I realize it is probably automatically-generated. I shredded it.)

.

My prejudice cracks through

The other day, at a fast food place, I saw an older-middle-age guy in an Obama T-shirt. Instantly I was overcome with "The Stereotype". I saw him as a snobby "progressive" who was probably on welfare and/or held a bureaucratic "job" which he depended on Big Government to create an imaginary "need" for.

I know that isn't nice of me. After all, I know from previous experience that when people see me without any context (and maybe in context) they see me as an ignorant hick. Someone who mumbles incoherently in single-syllable, incorrectly-pronounced words. Or something. I have actually had people confess that I was not at all what they had expected from appearances. Good.

As I watched him with my peripheral vision I tried to picture the shirt without the Obama image. I could almost eliminate the prejudice that way, until Obama showed up again. Then the suspicions came flooding back.

One thing that bewilders me beyond words is why- why on Earth- would anyone choose to wear a shirt that celebrates a puppetician? Why? Why venerate the most defective people in society? It's like wearing a shirt celebrating rabies or ebola. It seems to me that it shows an incredible lack of sense. Unless you do it as an exercise in irony.

.

Seeking out confirmatory sources

One big problem that most people have when they think about politics is, apparently, that they seek out sources that only confirm their biases, and avoid those that would expose them to the contrary opinions.

I don't have that option. I think that is why libertarians/anarchists are better-informed than most people. It would be impossible for me to avoid statist opinions. They are everywhere I turn. On TV, in movies, in music, in newspapers, online, expressed by every person I hear talking- whether to me or to some other stranger standing in line at the store. We all swim in an ocean of statism.

Now, we liberty-lovers could stick our fingers in our ears and scream "La la la, I can't HEAR you!" But I don't know any who do that, literally or figuratively. Instead, we roll with it and pick apart the flawed statist claims. They may not be listening since it is very easy for them to avoid being exposed to rational thinking. But that's OK. It just keeps making the reality gap wider.

.

TSA infographic

I realize the following is mostly just an advertisement, but I did find it interesting. And I am not getting any pay or any other consideration for posting it.

Obviously, I have deeper issues with the TSA and the "security industry" than the fact it is inefficient and doesn't work. All taxation is theft, even if it does what it is supposed to do, and the only security that has ever worked or ever will is a fully-armed population that is willing to kill attackers.

With all that said, here's the "infographic":


Created by: OnlineCriminalJusticeDegree.com

Does life begin at conception?

Another thought concerning abortion has occurred to me. It is about the statement "Life begins at conception". I always thought there was something wrong with that assertion, and I finally realized what it is.

Life doesn't begin at conception: it continues at conception. A living egg and a living sperm combine to form a living zygote. The real question should be "Do rights begin at conception?" (and I don't believe they do).

Until there is an individual, there are no rights. A zygote is not an individual. So, when does the individual "begin"? I don't know.

*

I know that even mentioning this subject alienates people, as does my position that even if it were objectively proven that abortion is always "murder" I don't want the State making "laws" criminalizing it (or anything else, either). The State is not legitimate, and its "legal" opinion on anything is worthless to me. But I am going to say my piece and you can take it or leave it.

.

Uninventing the wheel

I see civilization as a wheel. Simple and effective.

Statists look at that wheel and worry about what might go wrong, and decide they need to make that wheel "better".

So, they chip away at its roundness by encumbering that wheel with "laws" and regulations and red tape, until the wheel is no longer a functional wheel. It may still roll along- barely- but it is no longer even really round. And, it is now more dangerous, which makes the statists point to the dangers that their meddling has created and say it shows a need for more chiselwork.

Civilization needs to be rid of The State and its insane supporters. The sooner the better.

.

We all have our hobbies...

Sometimes, I admit, I really enjoy playing with statists.

As long as both sides can keep it civil.

It's just too easy to poke holes in their "arguments". Sometimes, it takes a lot of words- depending on how many separate delusions are involved, and are addressed. But it is never really hard; just time-consuming.

Is this a personality flaw of mine?

.

Rich-bashing

A facebook friend sent me a link to the article 6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying. He asked if I would address author David Wong's points. Wow. I don't even know where to start.

I guess the main thing that overshadows everything else is that if a guy got rich honestly, his money is none of your business. No matter how much he has, and no matter if he hoards it or invests it. And, if he got his money by theft, fraud, or by using government (yes, I just repeated myself there), then it doesn't matter if he is still hasn't gotten rich. Dishonest money isn't more dishonest just because there is more of it.

All in all, this Wong character sounds like a whiny, envious, "It's not fair" kind of guy, who also doesn't know the first thing about the reality of economics. Well, as Scott Adams so eloquently put it, fairness is "a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments". It is not a feature of reality.

There is just so much wrong with Wong's whine that I'm not going to even try to address everything he is wrong about. It would take a book.

So, by his numbering, here is what I think of his whine:

#6- He begins by saying that rich people who claim that $500,000 doesn't necessarily make you rich are oblivious. Maybe. I don't live in a particularly expensive area, or a big city, so I can get by on less. I'm not going to judge how much money someone needs to live where they choose to live, even if it's a "huge amount" by my standards. I also know that "rich" is subjective, and that's something Wong doesn't seem to get. Also, once again, whether someone is rich or poor, you don't get to decide to take their money away to use as you wish, even if you decide they have "too much". Sorry.

#5- He feels insulted that "rich" people claim to have worked hard to get their money. There's that old "fairness" thing again. Sure, I would like it if being a hard-blogging libertarian philosopher paid really well. But it doesn't and it isn't likely to ever do so. I do not have the inclination to do the kinds of things that rich people do to make money. Maybe I don't even have the ability. That isn't a rich person's fault, even if it also isn't my fault. Maybe that's just how the Universe works. Suck it up and move on. Sometimes, things you value are not things other people value. Sometimes "hard work" doesn't equal "valuable work". Or, they are things that anyone could do- no "skill" or unusual talent involved- so there isn't much reason to pay a lot for them. If that's the case, I'm sorry, but that doesn't entitle you to punish people who had marketable skills that pay well, or people who happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right talents.

#4- Wong then complains that rich people claim that if they got rich, so can you. I've encountered this one myself. A guy I used to know pretty well made money with everything he touched. He couldn't lose. He couldn't understand why everyone (particularly, me) wasn't wealthy. He kept telling me that making money was easy. Yet, here I am- still broke. But I don't blame him at all. There were things that were very easy to me that he couldn't do. It's just that my talents didn't bring financial reward while his did. I could have been bitter and jealous of him, or I could have kept counting him as a friend. I chose the happier path. Wong's error is the "slice of pie fallacy". Listen, wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie where if you have a bigger slice, mine is automatically smaller. No, the bigger your slice of the pie, the bigger the entire pie grows, and the better my chance of getting a bigger slice becomes. Mr. Wong, your ill-informed rant hurts us all by misleading other ignorant people into agreeing with you, and damaging the economy as a result. I hope you get smarter before you do too much damage- if anyone is listening to you.

#3- Then he complains that rich people say he is just jealous because they "made it" and he didn't. I agree there. His whole tirade stinks of jealousy and envy (and the echo still repeats "but it's not fair!"). I am not jealous of "the rich". I'd love to join them someday (if I could do so without losing more than I gain- which seems unlikely). I think most people who bash the rich do so in the belief that by bringing them down, they will somehow gain. What a pathetic desire to have. You could also have an advantage if you blinded everyone else in the world. But it doesn't make you better in any way. Wong believes he has a right, as a part of "society", to judge you for how you choose to spend your money. He believes you answer to him when you spend. And if he disagrees with your choice, he will call you names and advocate that The State steal more of your money to give to him. Because, if you don't spend your money the way he wants you to, then you are acting like a supervillain who lives on an island by himself. Pitiful creature, Mr. Wong is. Grasping at those straws that make him feel justified in advocating theft.

#2- Next Wong goes off on the "rich person's" claim that "You Shouldn't Be Punishing the Very People Who Make This Country Work!" He doesn't understand how value is created. He believes that the labor of poor people is why the factory is profitable. He forgets that the poor people had to have the factory provided by someone in order to use their labor to create the profit. Will those poor people band together to build the factory? They could... but will they? It sure doesn't happen very often. You need someone with the money to help you make your products and money. Perhaps Wong believes this is the place of The State. Perhaps he is wrong again. It's funny how much this contradicts his whole "no man is an island" thesis that he uses elsewhere. The poor could just get along fine if only those pesky rich people didn't have any "extra" money to spend on infrastructure along with the caviar. Please! The rich already "pitch in" in more ways, and to a greater degree, than Mr. Wong can wrap his mind around. He isn't asking them to "get something down from a very tall shelf because nobody else can ... reach it", he is ordering them to get it down because he is too lazy to bring over the step ladder. Anyone would balk when you order them to do your job for you while you point a gun at their head.

#1- Finally, he pushes his collectivist view that everyone is just as parasitical as he is, and that claiming that you should stop asking for handouts is just mean. Or delusional. I don't care if someone asks for handouts. What I hate is when they demand you hand over your property at the point of a gun. It doesn't matter to me if they are using their own gun and putting their own life in peril, or using the State's gun and stealing through democracy. You have no right to any other person's property. Go ahead: ask for handouts. Just don't think you are entitled to them. And don't expect people not to look at you as a whiny, selfish, lazy parasite.

A funny footnote. In the column Wong says "all civilization and morality rests on the fact that we have to answer to each other - the only reason I haven't murdered a dozen people in traffic is because society will bring consequences if I do." That's the classic collectivist's admission. It crops up in almost every conversation with a statist if they talk long enough. And, remember that these are the very people who seek political office and bureaucratic jobs. They simply redirect their murderous tendencies into jobs where they can cause pain to others without being punished for it. And I'm supposed to "honor" their choice? I don't think so. I don't murder people because it is wrong to attack the innocent, not because I fear the consequences. It's really not a hard decision to make. Am I that much better than the Wongs of the world?

.

Why "dollar"?

I posted the following comment in response to this essay concerning "face value" of private money:

I think it would be useful for voluntary currency to ditch the "dollar" face value for something that doesn't need to move up or down. How about a face value in "vollars"? Or something that sounds less like "dollar". An ounce of minted copper could be one "vollar", and other coins could be valued in multiples of that. Or, if an ounce of silver is used as the vollar, you could have fractional values for smaller coins and copper. Then, somewhere, there could be a published exchange rate between vollars and dollars.

I think that tying face value to something that is doomed, like the dollar, is a bad idea, and dangerous, too, as Bernard von NotHaus discovered. I'm not interested in "dollars", but in money. Value. Hmmm. So, maybe the currency could be called "Valors". (I still like my own "Silver Dubloons".)

Whatever... I even designed a symbol that could be used for a voluntary currency like the "$" is used for dollars:

Liberty is better

Even if there were some problem that liberty made worse, I would still support liberty. Liberty improves the odds that a real solution, rather than some bandaid, will be found.

However, the case is usually that when liberty is supposedly making some situation "worse", it really isn't. Maybe the situation isn't perfectly solved, but the State solution is always just as bad, and it fails to enhance individual liberty making a true solution less likely to be found.

All else being equal, I would consider more liberty, even if the underlying problem is unchanged, to be a net gain.

And, in every instance I have really picked apart (so far), liberty actually makes the underlying problem less of a problem. Regardless of the claims of the statists.

.

Anger: the anti-liberty

There is a place for anger. When you see injustice, and rights being violated, it is only human to get angry. The danger is that in your anger you will strike out in such a way that you become just as bad as that which angers you.

If your anger leads you to advocate a "governmental solution", then your anger is only leading to more trouble. There is ALWAYS a better way, even if you haven't yet thought of it.

There are things that make me angry. However, if my knee-jerk reaction is "There oughta be a law..." or a desire for enhanced punishment from the State, I know I am off-track somewhere and I need to re-examine my thinking processes. And, when I run into such things from another liberty advocate, I know they are dealing with some inconsistencies (or pain) in their life that need to be addressed. And, I need to remind myself to not let it make me angry.

.

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.

.