State creates made-up problems

State creates made-up problems (But, obviously, they become real problems that could have been avoided, if only...)

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 30, 2012.)

It amuses me how many problems which have a government-mandated "solution" are caused by previous government mandates which came about as misguided solutions for previously manufactured problems. And, because the majority of "The People" have become convinced that the earlier mandates are "The Way it's Always Been Done" (rather than a relatively recent "gum, tape, and string" contraption), they believe there is no rational, voluntary way to solve the problems they see around them now. After all, you can't alter one element without exposing the mess that was created before that, and so on. It's quite a cycle.

As the late Robert Lafevre is supposed to have said, "Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." Truer words have seldom been spoken.

If you see a problem in society, you will be safe in betting its root cause, when you dig deep enough, is The State.

Prices rise because government has made the value of money drop like a rock. Counterfeiting on a grand scale will do that to money. To counter this, even more money is printed. Which makes the value of the money go even lower, which makes prices rise more.

Unemployment is rampant because minimum wage laws and other government edicts raise the bar too high for many new workers. I may not be worth whatever the dictated minimum wage is, but be willing to work for less to gain experience. Government forbids me from striking my own mutually-satisfactory deal with a potential employer. I have tried and found employers afraid to risk being caught.

Crime seems rampant because laws make it a criminal act to defend yourself with the most effective defensive tools ever created. Except under strict guidelines; with prior permission. This makes the bad guys bold, which causes politicians and bureaucrats to call for more restrictions on acts, and the tools, of self defense, which protects the bad guys from the real consequences of their acts, and so on.

Government is a societal virus; similar in action to a computer virus. I'm sure many of you have clicked on the wrong link at some time and gotten a computer virus that offers to sell you a security program to get rid of the virus they just put on your computer. The ones I have suffered even hijacked my computer to prevent it from going to any page other than the site where I could pay to get rid of their virus. Sound familiar? Keep people believing you are the only solution and you can get away with just about anything.

.

Let them ALL "win"

Thinking back on a previous blog post gave me an idea. One that seems it would make Repubmocratican voters of any sort happy and complacent. Although it wouldn't do much for liberty-lovers in that department.

There should be some way to convince everyone who votes "mainstream" that their candidate won. And that for the next four years, he is the one holding the office of president.

After all, Democrats are quiet and happy as long as the president directing the war crimes is a Democrat, and Republicans are quiet and happy as long as the president building the US police state is a Republican. Or, is it vice versa on the preferred violations?

In any case, the acts never differ depending on the vermin holding the office, so the only thing I can see that determines whether a voter thinks the president is dandy or despicable is whether that president belongs to the party that the voter belongs to. So, let them believe it. All of them. Internet and mass media technology should make that possible. Starting with reporting the election results.

Let FOX News praise the latest genocide encouraged by President Romney and let MSNBC get all weak in the knees over brave President Obama's latest drone strike on an elementary school in Wastelandistan. Do the same filtering with the internet that voters are likely to browse- after all, the "experts" claim we all avoid hearing opinions that differ with ours anyway- so the self-selection should be automatic. And don't get wires crossed about who talks about which president.

Then, with all the voters happy, and presumably half-asleep, maybe the rest of us can make some changes behind the scenes.

.

"School is..."

"School is a place where children learn to be stupid."

Great observation. From this video.

.

Self deception

A "conservative" relative put the accompanying picture on her Facebook page.

What she, and the vast majority of Republican voters refuse to recognize is that a vote for Mitt Wrongney IS a vote for Obama.

If you feel you have to vote (which, trust me, you really don't have to) vote for the LP candidate or Ron Paul or write in a name.

Do not fool yourself into believing (yes, "believing", since there is no thinking involved) that Mitt Wrongney is any different than Obama. He isn't. Not one bit.

I realize the human capacity for self deception is boundless, but that doesn't mean I won't stop trying to deceive myself into hoping I can wake up a few people. I try because I care and because I see you sawing off your own arm with a rusty butter knife while it's your foot caught in the trap.

.

Obey the will of Landru (or not)

Do you believe The State doesn't believe it owns your kids- and you? Check out this news item about "A pregnant Las Cruces mother wanted for child abuse who took her kids from school without permission..."

She was wanted (they caught her according to the confusingly written/edited story) for "child abuse" because she, rather oddly, took her kids to a hospital claiming someone had possibly hurt them, and "Although there were no obvious injuries, police began an investigation...". Of course they did. So, perhaps her mental state wasn't quite right, and maybe her kids really were in some sort of danger... but child abuse?

Ah, finally, we get to the heart of the matter: "has been charged with child abuse for remove [sic] the girls from their elementary school without permission."

Yep. The State (through it perverted employees) believes it owns you and that you need permission from its minions before taking your kids out of one of its indoctrination centers.

__

*How's this for a bizarre coincidence: I wrote the title for this post yesterday and scheduled it to be posted automatically (which, for some reason hasn't been working this past week, but that's another story) and then, many hours later, I found this!

.

Doing the right thing

Thinking back over previous posts, recent and ancient (in internet terms, anyway), has me considering something that I suppose I should make clear:

I want to do the right thing even when I don't like it. And even if others think I'm wrong.

That doesn't mean I always have, or always will. But I do think I'm getting better. And, from what I observe, the libertarian way is always more right than the coercive, authoritarian way. So that's good.

.

Judge "justifies" himself

Yesterday, on Debbie Harbeson's THE SUBURBAN VOLUNTARYIST blog, she posted a retired judge's response to her criticisms of his questionable (and I think, downright crooked) acts while in his position of coercive power.

One of the parts she quoted has the judge writing:

I suppose when you view the world from her “all government is evil” libertarian perspective, some of what I wrote in my response really does seem “hysterical” to her.

How could any person honestly see the government as anything other than evil? Unless he or she was so invested in the system that they had built a fortress of denial around themselves. Of course, the former judge we are discussing proved by his actions that he probably doesn't see anything "honestly". (You can read the entire story on Debbie's blog and judge the judge yourself.)

Sure, sometimes government might do something good, but it can only accomplish those good things through evil means. Coercion and theft negate any "good" that might come about as a result- and every single thing government at any level accomplishes is accomplished through coercion and theft. Without exception. The former judge is guilty of participating in this, and now of defending it. That shows his lack of character very clearly, whether he wants it to or not.

So, he can try to sound condescendingly "reasonable" by saying his critics are "hysterical", but he can't hide from the truth. He can justify the theft and coercion he precipitated, but they were still wrong. He can point to supposed "good outcomes" or "benefits" of the theft and coercion he facilitated, but the means to the end are important, and even his "ends" are wrong and a violation of liberty.

He denies the presence of the gun in the room because to see it would be to admit he is a thug. A member of a violent, aggressive gang which will (and does) murder anyone who resists submitting to the theft and coercion long enough.

He claims "...most of us can distinguish between reasonable exercises of governmental authority, like requiring us to stop at red lights versus the Gestapo coming for us in the middle of the night..." without realizing this is only a matter of degree.

Remember the success of cities which have dispensed with traffic signals, then consider what happens if a reaver tries to stop and fine you (rob you) for failure to stop at a red light (even in the dead of night with no other cars anywhere near). If you resist, the reaver will shoot you. The penalty is always death. It's just that few people refuse to comply up to that point- for obvious reasons. This is not "reasonable", and the government has no legitimate authority to do it. The same is true for almost anything the State claims the authority to do.

He thinks that the fact that "...all governments make people do some things and refrain from doing other things" justifies it. No, it just shows that all governments are thugs. "He does it too!"

If a government is making someone do something against their will- such as hand over some of their property or submit to gate rape- that government is doing evil. If a government is forcing people to refrain from doing something they have a fundamental human right to do- such as carry any kind of weapon wherever they go, in any manner they see fit, without asking permission from anyone, ever... or introducing any substance into their body they want- then that government is committing evil. This doesn't prove your government isn't a tyranny, ex-judge; quite the opposite. It shows it is impossible for any government to be anything other than a tyranny.

A couple of times he uses the word "libertarian" as if he is smugly insulting Debbie. It backfires. He shows what a statist scum he is by his failed attempt at an insult.

He goes on to quibble over the meaning of "fine" and "fee". Theft is theft, no matter what fancy words you call it by. The only way it isn't is if it is voluntary, or is restitution to be paid to an individual who has been harmed. There is no such individual here.

He tries very hard to explain why he did what he did- not that his scheme was more evil than the state police extortion scam; his was just no better. That you took people's property from them is the offence- who you gave the stolen property to is of no consequence.

He drones on about all the good gestapo programs the stolen money was used to finance, such as the irredeemably stupid and evil war on (some) drugs. And how he hopes "the majority of citizens who accept the validity of traffic laws and consequences for breaking them" will approve of his dispensing of the fruits of theft in a way that keeps the loot at home- well, in a local kleptocracy's treasury, anyway.

How I wish... But he will never get it. He is too deeply invested and wants, desperately, to believe he isn't a bad guy. He is lying to himself first, and to everyone who listens to him second. What a waste.

Being nice

There is right, there is "justified", and there is nice.

And by "right", I mean both contexts.

If you have a right to do something, no one needs to give you permission to do it. It may not make other people happy, and may seem "selfish", but as long as you are not attacking, stealing, or trespassing, other people's opinions only matter if you let them.

Then, if something is the right thing to do, you should do it because to do otherwise is probably not quite as good a choice; being either wrong or neutral.

Sometimes things aren't right, but are understandable; human nature, biology, and physiology being what it is. These are the things I sometimes categorize as "justified". This category is wishy-washy and depends a lot on personal values and opinions, created over a lifetime of experiences.

Then there are things that you do, or avoid doing, because you are considerate of someone else's preferences. You are being nice. You may have a right to do something, but you don't do it to be "nice". Or, something may be "justified" but you are able to get past your baser instincts and be "nice". Or you may have no obligation to do something at all, but you go out of your way to be nice and do it anyway.

"Nice" is where I wish we could all exist at all times.

.

Landfills bear future treasures

Landfills bear future treasures

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 23, 2012. I figured I upset the "right" last week, so this week it was the "left's" turn.)

I picked up a magazine the other day and suddenly a flurry of those familiar and annoying advertising cards fluttered to the floor. As I was picking them up to toss them in the trash, I noticed one said something to the effect that I should read it on my way to the recycling bin. How optimistic. I confess: I rarely recycle.

When recycling becomes viable, in other words when the economics of recycling make sense, no one will have to make laws ordering people to do it. It will happen spontaneously. That's why a lot of people recycle aluminum cans without being forced to do so. Yet, aluminum is only marginally recyclable; recycling cans is just about a break-even proposition. The effort that goes into collecting the cans, compared to the money you get when you cash them in, is only worth it to a minority of people. The payoff just isn't great enough yet.

But I have good news. There's no reason to feel guilty if you are one of us whose time is better spent on things other than sorting your trash. Sending things you no longer want to the landfill is not being wasteful at all. In fact, you are helping to amass this future wealth in one easily accessible location. It's like you are burying treasure. Want to ensure that your descendants, somewhere down the line, are rich? Buy up old landfills. When the recycling technology advances to the point where recycling makes economic sense, those places will be mined for the abundant resources they contain just below the surface.

You're welcome.

The only possible flaw in that plan is The State. It is increasingly likely that government will declare old landfills to be a dangerous hazard and take ownership of them all, "for our own good" of course, and to keep the vast riches therein for itself. Unfortunately, you can say the same about any investment for the future. It has even happened in the past with gold.

Maybe the safer bet is to work to find ways to make recycling profitable. Develop recycling technology and design the methods and machines that will be used to mine to old landfills and collect, sort, and process the next generation of raw materials. In that way, no matter who owns the landfills when that happens, you'll win.

.

What is "public school"?

"Public school"-

A misnomer for a prison established by a government to punish kids for the crime of interfering with their parents' ability to work sufficient hours to pay "taxes", some of which are used to finance the "public school". Sometimes education happens by accident in these prisons but generally the kids learn less intellectual information while imprisoned therein than they would have otherwise, and what they do learn is usually of a lower quality and doesn't make a lasting impression. They do, however, learn about being bullied (by fellow prisoners as well as by the "authorities" who herd them) which they would probably never get the chance to learn outside this system.

.

Aretae's Libertarian Omnibus Post

I think, or hope, I've said most of these things in one way or another over the years, but Aretae has said them all together, now. And he sounds more scholarly while doing it. Go. Read.

.

I am Trayvon; I am also Zimmerman. Sorta.

I guess one reason I keep getting scolded for my views on the Zimmerman/Martin incident is that I can see myself as either man, in a superficially similar situation. I can put myself in either man's shoes.

I'm guessing from the reactions that most people can picture themselves walking along, minding their own business and being followed and cornered by a gun-wielding, testosterone-crazed enforcer thug. And then being shot in the ensuing encounter. Yeah, I can picture myself in that situation without much trouble at all.

However, I can also picture myself getting into "legal" trouble (and being crucified by pundits everywhere) for confronting a trespasser (not on my property, mind you, but not on his own property, either) whom I suspect might be up to no good; feeling threatened enough by his demeanor and attitude when I confront him that the fact he isn't carrying a gun doesn't mean much and at some point I feel I have to shoot him to protect myself, and doing so.

And this is just me, as I am right now, without any (recognized) authoritarian baggage or beliefs.

Has no one besides me ever felt threatened by a person who wasn't pointing a gun at them at that moment? Before guns were invented, were people- bad guys and good, alike- always "unarmed"?

Does no one else see things this way at all? Can I really be that out of step with the rest of my species? If so, I apologize for poking the possum.

.

"Don't Tread on Me" or "Bite My Shiny Metal ..."

I saw an episode of Futurama recently where Bender (the above-illustrated robot) time-traveled back to the era of the first American revolution and altered history by doing something off-screen that ended up replacing the original Gadsden "Don't tread on me" flag with the one above. The flag (before and after) was seen hanging from the wall in the presidents' Head Museum.

I loved the "new" design, because that's really what the original flag meant, even if the language was more polite. (In the show there were a lot of jokes based on the "s" looking like an "f" in notes that were sent.)

So, I wanted to share it with you.

(I tried to find the specific image of the flag from the show to share, but couldn't, so I made this one myself with a fair representation of the Bender image that was on the flag swiped from the internet. In the original he was holding the cigar and there was no beer bottle. This might be even better. So, yeah, that means I am probably guilty of violating at least one person's IP rights, but if someone complains I will immediately remove the image. I hope they understand I only present this out of a deep appreciation of the humor I found in the flag presented on that episode and the awesome artwork they, and the artist who drew the Bender I used, created.)


.

Misery-finders

One very miserable person I know seems to give me some insight into a couple of traits that bring misery.

For one thing, she places all her expectations on others instead of taking responsibility for herself.

Instead of taking initiative, she complains bitterly that "the other person" didn't do what she expected them to do. Never mind that it was never the other person's responsibility, and often these expectations were unspoken.

And, since she knows how everyone else should live, and they rarely live "up" to her expectations, she is not only miserable about other people not carrying the weight of her responsibilities (in ways that disappoint her and add to the things she would have to do if they were to get done), but is also miserable about things that have no bearing on her life at all. Misery by proxy. Her entire existence seems wrapped up in being miserable and downright hateful because other people don't do as she expected them to do.

As I was once told by one of her relatives "Anger makes her happy". A rather "New Agey" (and therefore questionable) video I recently watched pointed out that some people are addicted to negative emotions and need to get that fix no matter what.

It illuminates a trap I now, being aware of it, strive to avoid. Amazing how much liberty you can gain when you let other people live their own lives, and when you take responsibility for the things that matter to you.

.

Here I am, Nobel Prize Committee (Physics)

My daughter just woke me up because she couldn't find her Pooh Bear and startled me (read "scared me out of my wits") enough that I can't go back to sleep. Partially because I can't silence my noisy thoughts.

One of the various things running through my head when I awoke might be a way to explain an aspect of quantum entanglement. (Yes, these things do run through my mind at all hours.) In that case, in order to secure my status as a contender for the Nobel Prize in Physics, I'll post my idea here. (I apologize to my regular readers as this will probably not interest any of you in the slightest.)

In order to visualize this, let's visit Flatland in order to deal with this in a way that gets rid of a complicating dimension.

Perhaps entangled particles are actually two points on a loop (which was created when the particles were entangled). This loop would need to be rigid in such a way that when you twist one particle by measuring the spin (or other entangled property), the other is instantly twisted as well. (Think of those flexible screw drivers.)

The loop would need to have other properties as well.

It would have to either be able to be pinched and stretched*, so that the two points- the particles- could go from being proximate, to being a very great distance apart --- OR-the loop would need to be able to grow exponentially while maintaining its circular geometry. Or, perhaps the loop doesn't actually grow, but is passing perpendicularly through the plane of Flatland so that the points of its intersection move apart. This would mean that the loop would need to be, for all practical purposes, infinitely large since particles don't seem to slow and eventually reverse their paths.

(*If the loop were flexible enough to be pinched and stretched, might there be a case of more than two particles being entangled? The loop might "loop" around enough to pass through the plane of Flatland 2, 4, 6, or more times, which could be experimentally checked.)

Now, to visualize this idea in our Universe, return the dimension we lost by going to Flatland, and view the particles (or "strings") as "points" along a higher-dimensional "loop" where it passes through our spatial dimensions and you should be able to visualize what I am thinking.

One problem I see with this idea is that a circular loop would seem to dictate that the entangled particles should move apart very rapidly at first as the loop passed through our dimension, then slow as the sides of the loop became more and more "parallel" to one another and perpendicular to the "plane" of the Universe they passed through. This could also indicate I have the geometry wrong even if the concept is basically sound.

I believe experiments could be designed to test some of the characteristics of this hypothetical loop in order to falsify the idea. But I am not the person to do the math. I'm willing to share the Nobel Prize with someone who can work out the math- and hey, if a mass-murdering puppetician like Obama can get a "peace prize", a simple mountainman like me should be a serious contender for a prize in physics. I'll await my call.

.

Instant Improvement. Really!

I understand pessimism, discouragement, and depression. Only too well.

Both in my personal life and in trying to spread the desire for liberty beyond my own brain.

With liberty, if you allow The State to dictate your definition of "success", pessimism seems inevitable. Even if you were 90% to your goal, the enemies of liberty wouldn't acknowledge it, and if you listen to them you'd think you are no closer than when you first began.

You don't have to change the whole world- you only have to change yourself- and the way you deal with the world. Your life will improve at that moment and any change beyond yourself will just be icing on the cake. What are you waiting for?

Oh, and "4/19!"

.

"That's just not the way things work..."

In a brief discussion with a relative, I distilled, once again, my "philosophy" of live and let live.

Her reply was that it would be nice, but no one else would ever let me do that. "That's just not the way things work..."

My opinion is that if individuals like me don't leave other people alone (as in not using coercion against them, whether personally, or "collectively" through The State) to do as they wish, as long as they aren't stealing or attacking, why should we expect them to leave us alone? It has to start somewhere.

Maybe that's not how the world is now. Maybe it will never be like that. However, I can still make my own life better- right here right now- by doing the right thing even if others don't. I make my stand on the principles of voluntaryism/anarchism/libertarianism. However that turns out, it is my choice to stand for your liberty, and thereby enhance my own.

.

Border patrol waste of taxes

Border patrol waste of taxes (as is everything else government does... and since "taxation" is theft...)

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 16, 2012)

I am not a believer in immigration "laws" or national borders. I know that's a seriously radical admission, especially in these "border states". Even more, I resent the Border Patrol vehicles I sometimes see around the area. They are not "keeping me safe", but are instead wasting tax money and bolstering the emerging US police state.

The only real borders are private property lines. If you own property and choose to forbid anyone access to it, for any reason, that is your business. But for you to own property and have someone else, or some government, tell you that you can't allow access to whomever you so choose is a violation of your property rights.

I don't care where someone was born or what paperwork and/or permission he has (or lacks). I only care whether he is stealing or attacking. Because of that, I have less in common with politicians, bureaucrats, and enforcers than I do some poor guy from another country who is only trying to find a better life for himself and his family. I recognize who the real problem is.

I've heard all the admonitions about how migration without government permission is wrong because it's illegal. I don't buy it. I've listened to all the ways the independent migrants, usually called "illegal immigrants", supposedly hurt America. The reality is that most of those issues are issues only because of socialism. Eliminate all welfare and eliminate all "laws" against self defense (including, of course, defense of your property) and you would eliminate the incentive for bad guys to immigrate. The good migrants who are coming here in order to help themselves honestly, and who end up helping the local economy as a consequence, will still come. It's a win-win situation.

Just like gun laws only disarm those who are not inclined to attack and rob, immigration laws make "legal" migration difficult and only succeed in weeding out the good people who would be willing to jump through all the ridiculous hoops and years of red tape, but for whatever reason, can't. A lot of good people come to the conclusion that it is worth the risk of getting caught to make the attempt even without permission. I accept them with a hearty "Welcome home!". Those determined to be bad guys will not be deterred by your prohibitions. They will always find a way- at least until the US government's socialist policies crash the economy and make America a less attractive destination, as is already happening.

.

"Good" statists

Continuation of a stream of thought...

You could be a pure "conservative" and oppose abortion, hate homosexuality, love God and guns, idealize tradition, treat other "races" with suspicion, put Reagan on a pedestal, and so forth*- or be a pure "liberal" and hate guns, be a tree-hugging environmentalist, think other "races" and genders need a helping hand, despise Big Business and all "Dead White Men", idolize marijuana, wear Che T-shirts, think holding hands and singing will solve everything, and all the other "progressive" things*- yet as long as you don't threaten or use coercion, individually or as a "collective", to get your way, you are acting in a "libertarian" fashion.

You could also be a self-identified libertarian while holding some of those other positions while admitting that using force to impose your preferences would be wrong. It matters less what your beliefs and preferences are than how you work to get those adopted by the rest of the world.

Just don't let your preferences trick you into believing that initiating force in order to get what you want is ever right and you'll be welcome at my fireside any time.

_____

*Yes, I am intentionally being dramatic about both positions, trying to see them as the "other side" sees them.

.

Bad "libertarians"

Could a thief or an aggressor be a "libertarian"?

It seems to me he could, in a tragic, failed sort of way.

Just because you recognize the truth of the Zero Aggression Principle doesn't mean you'd necessarily follow it. Knowing it is wrong to steal doesn't mean you wouldn't steal. You might try to justify your deeds, but why justify what you believe to be right?

Still, I'd say actions speak louder than words, but I can see how a person who knows the right thing might not live up to the principles.

Maybe this accounts for some of those "former libertarians" I have heard of. They know the right thing to do, but can't live up to it so they decide to walk away and be "former". I'll bet, deep inside, they still know what is right, and know they aren't there anymore, even as they pretend they don't believe the same as they once did.

On the other hand.... to be continued tomorrow...

.

My "calling"?

I think I would really enjoy earning my money as an arbitrator in a free society.

I look at situations where a dispute has occurred as a puzzle. It is fun to work out "the right thing" based upon the ZAP and other libertarian principles.

It kind of fits in with my mom's assessment that I should have been a lawyer, while recognizing the utter contempt I have for "the law" and courts. And this respects the voluntary nature of real justice and I love the fact that no one would be robbed to pay my fee.

.

Profanity in the Park- Liberty Lines 4-12-2012

(Published in the State Line Tribune 4-12-2012)

Freedom, as I understand it, is doing whatever you want to do. Liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to do those things you have a right to do. However, just because you have a right to do something it doesn't mean that it's the best thing to do in every situation. Liberty always comes with responsibility

For example, those local residents who play basketball at the Farwell park and the elementary school playground have the right to use the childish language- mostly four-letter words- that is usually referred to as "profanity", but when small kids are around it is a poor decision.

I am not shocked by your words, nor am I impressed that you know them. I knew most of them when I was in fourth grade, and I was probably a slow learner. However I resent that you have so little respect for my young daughter that you can't play a simple game without screaming those words, and describing in graphic terms what you suggest your opponents do, at the top of your lungs, with each and every play. You foul the air just like you litter the ground with all the empty "sports drink" bottles that you leave behind. You are responsible for your deeds whether you accept it or not.

I understand why some misguided people try to have laws passed to use the brute force of government to punish those who loudly and indiscriminately fail to grow up in the language they use and in their actions. Yet I will continue to despise and oppose any such attempts to regulate your speech. As I say, you have a right to say whatever you want, but when you misuse that right, and fail to accept responsibility, others get the bright idea to control you by "law", and some of them aren't nearly as concerned about your rights as I am. You give the nannies among us an excuse to try to violate everyone's liberty with your boorish behavior. Please grow up.

I realize this plea will not reach those I am addressing. The impression I get from your juvenile choice of language is that you probably don't spend much time reading anything as deep as a newspaper- and it makes me doubt anyone in your life cares enough to mention this to you. Prove me wrong.

Man Alive, that was interesting!

I just read an online book that I really enjoyed. I found it over at Sunni's blog .

It is called "Man Alive! A Survival Manual for the Human Mind" by Greg Swann.

Now, you could argue that this is just a libertarian version of "The Secret" or something, but I don't think so. There's no "magic" or mystical thinking involved- just thinking. And acting on those thoughts.

I really dislike reading books on the computer, but on Sunni's recommendation I did it anyway. And I got a lot out of it. If you feel like reading it, I think you'll be glad you did.

.

Right, wrong differ from legality

Right, wrong differ from legality

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 9, 2012.)

One common, and very amusing, retort I encounter whenever I point out that not all "laws" are equally moral or ethical, is "It's the LAW; you have to obey whether you agree or not". Usually that is followed by some personal insults and innuendo.

It is a pathetic excuse for an argument. The first thing bad government (but I repeat myself) does is make its own abuses "legal". It fools those who just want to do the right thing into taking the side of the bad guys.

Remember that there is right and there is wrong, and legality has less to do with rightness with each passing day. Suppose history repeats itself and suddenly a segment of the population- in the past it has been Jews and runaway slaves- is forced into hiding in order to survive. The law also demands you report any of those in hiding or you become a criminal just like they are. Would you obey the law? Would you ridicule and report those who refused to obey the law? It would, after all, be "The Law".

If you would, I pity you. I still will not obey laws that violate the basic, inborn natural human rights of others, even people I don't particularly like. My conscience is more valuable than is the feeling of being a "good citizen" by doing the bidding of those who believe they have the authority to rule.

Plus, there is a glaring double standard. We are expected to obey everything government imposes upon us, yet government employees conveniently forget to obey the laws that bind them. And, judging from recent history, they can't generally be held accountable.

Legally, as amendments, the Bill of Rights supersedes anything in the body of the Constitution. Where the two clash, the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land. That means every gun "law", no matter how minor, is illegal, and enforcing it is a very serious crime. Yet, how many enforcers end up in jail for enforcing gun regulations and prohibitions?

It also means that the constitutional mandate for government employees to stay out of your home and papers (and today, your car, computer, and phone records) except in severely limited circumstances is rock solid. Any "fishing expedition"-type searches are illegal. Contrary to the clear intent of the law, warrants are rubber-stamped with no specific criteria, usually to enforce laws that the Constitution clearly prohibits.

In the coming years, as things average citizens care about become just as illegal as those things they don't, I will be amused to see the shift in attitudes, and will be thinking "Welcome to the party, pal".

.

Tax addicts and embracing "the law"

A recent post dealt with an evil use of "child support". Here is another example I just became aware of.

Someone else I know had a baby a couple of years ago. The couple "coupled" but never were a "real" couple, as far as I know. And both were rather young by this society's standards (although I don't always agree with those standards). Anyway, a "surprise" teen pregnancy resulted to the horror of all involved. With the guidance of the soon-to-be grandparents, welfare was applied for and received. Yes, a rather appalling lack of responsibility all around.

The baby and mom have always lived with the mom's parents, and there is no plan to change that. They have not made any demands of the father at all. He is free to come see his young son, or to even take him places, at almost any time. The father is rather wishy-washy. He comes to see the kid when it is convenient and makes plans to come visit but doesn't bother to show up at the arranged time, or even bother to call to cancel, fairly often. His child doesn't even really understand who this guy is.

And now he is demanding- by force of The State- "fair access" to the kid, "child support" payments from the young mother (or, more likely, from her parents), and that the kid be given his last name.

If he prevails in his lawsuit, this is just another illustration that "child support" is a disgusting scam. That he could even get a lawyer to draft such a demand shows that something is dreadfully wrong with the "system".

.

Do I harbor what I hate?

Sometimes I wonder if I have authoritarian tendencies that I keep hidden from myself.

I know someone who is a liar, who claims she hates liars, and who is a very sneaky person, but says she hates sneakiness.

I hate authoritarianism, so does that mean I really have the urge to order everyone around or work for the TSA? Goodness, I hope not!

I'm opinionated. If it comes up I do not hide my thoughts or attitudes. However, it usually doesn't become an issue until someone tries to force me to do things their way. As long as they don't do that I don't try to meddle in their business. (I have been accused of "forcing" someone to put up with me doing what I want to do, which seems absurd when you think about it.)

.

Give me MORE climate change!

But I want "Libertogenic Global Political Climate Change".

I want understanding and hunger for liberty to spread like kudzu. I want it to be partially my fault. I want to increase my "Liberty Footprint" by giving off more than my fair share. And I want it to be irreversible.

.

Rules of the game

I get together on an irregular basis to play cards with some of my relatives. Some of us (not me, of course) have trouble remembering the rules of Polish Poker and this brings many opportunities for hilarity.

Which makes me think about rules.

The common erroneous notion is that anarchists such as myself are opposed to rules in general. That's just silly. I am opposed to Rulers and arbitrary rules.

It is as if, during the course of a card game, someone keeps switching out the cards we are using for cards of some other type. Old Maid cards, perhaps. And keeps changing the rules in such a way that they benefit- win- at everyone else's expense. In other words, they rig the game.

Only a fool would keep playing under such conditions. But, just keep on voting and begging for your liberty if that's what you think is best.

.

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.

.