No justice in Florida teen’s slaying

No justice in Florida teen’s slaying

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

One recent "big national news" story where I seem to differ with a lot of libertarians is the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting.

I have seen the prevailing voices shift support behind whichever of the two the latest reports seem to vindicate. I continue to support both, and neither. Which is to say I support truth and liberty, wherever that may lead.

None of us were there, and even if there are any witnesses who are brought forward to testify, they will all have an agenda and be trying to push a certain perspective. It's human nature and inevitable. All any of us will ever know for sure is that two people encountered one another, and now one of them is dead.

I believe- and I admit it is nothing more than a belief- that this is a case of two troublemakers out looking for trouble and succeeding in finding it when they encountered one another. Both seem to have a history that points in that direction. I don't believe I would have been friends with either man, since both seem to have been fans of intimidation and coercion and cultural divisiveness. Of course, in both cases, all any of us knows about the individual involved has been filtered through others who want us to see the events from a particular perspective, and any truth is incidental.

Regardless of what had happened in the past, or even earlier that fateful hour, at the instant the trigger was pulled one of the two was innocent- not deserving to be harmed at that particular moment. You and I will never know which one of them was the innocent party. A trial won't alter that.

If Trayvon Martin was innocent there can never be any justice for him. Certainly not through the courts. If George Zimmerman was innocent, his prosecution is the opposite of justice and is heaping injury on top of injury. In either case making a criminal case out of this, and, in case of a conviction, allowing the prison system to swallow yet another person, isn't helping anyone other than those who profit from the excessive, abusive use of the justice system for the benefit of the imprisonment industry, and those who profit- economically or politically- from driving a wedge through society.

As in so many other cases, the best thing to do is to take Zimmerman at his word that he was being attacked and acted in self defense, but watch him carefully for any hint of aggression or "enforcer-type" behavior from this moment forward.

.

Condescension in responses

Yes, I can be condescending. A commenter has called my attention to it once again.

This happens when I get frustrated. When a person keeps saying the same thing over and over (and over) again; grasping for any justification for The State. It becomes hard to take that person seriously, since they are not taking the pro-liberty evidence seriously.

At least I don't start calling people nasty names- not worse than "statist", anyway. But if that's their position, that ruling other people is a legitimate human activity, should they be insulted by the acknowledgement that this is what they believe? I don't know. I am not insulted in the least when called an anarchist, even when the person is trying to insult me. I guess that's just me.

I just finished reading the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, and he mentions a similar problem he had that was pointed out to him by a friend. He tells how he endeavored to change his behavior. I may not be as good a man as Mr. Franklin, so I may fail... but I will try to do better.

I'm not saying there is no place for condescension. Or profanity. Or even calling an idiot an idiot. What I am saying is that I try to not be the "place" for that.

However, there are some notions that have had a free ride for way too long. Some opinions are just not valid. The myth of "needing" a State is one of them. Too many people have coddled the people expressing this false delusion for far too long, and pretended that the idea isn't simply outright insane. I think it's long past time to call a spade a spade.

Thoughts?

_

Addendum: Then what makes me even more irritated in this particular case is that the commenter huffs off after claiming to find misogyny in the comments. Notice that no one mentioned gender at all. Until she brought it up, that is. It makes me think that she believes that socialism is a "feminine value" or something. Ugh!



.

Annular eclipse photos- May 20, 2012

All photos, except the one of the reflection in the house window, taken by my mother. In order, I think.

Free market supporter?

If you are a supporter of the War on (some) Drugs, you are an enemy of the free market.

.

Eureka! Eclipse shows stop signs DO have a use

After long, fruitless years of studying, I have finally done it: I have found a legitimate use for stop signs!

They are good screens for projecting annular solar eclipses on.

I was happy to be along the path of this evening's eclipse and by using a mirror I was able to watch the reflection of the whole thing (until the sun set). Awesome!

I also used a pinhole and reflections in car windows and another group of eclipse watchers let me look through their welding helmet as well. And I did sneak some peeks as the sun set and was dimmed by haze.

Here's a regular picture of the annular eclipse taken by my mom during the maximum.

.

A situation concerning a dog

On Claire Wolfe's blog, she mentions a "situation" she is facing. I think it is the first time I have ever found myself on the "other side" of a Claire opinion.

Basically, it comes down to this: Is it worth saving the life of an apparently unadoptable dog to let him be taken to be trained as a "drug sniffer"?

I'm sorry, but I don't think it is.

I love animals, but people have to come first, in my opinion. If I had to choose between a beloved family pet and some stranger, I might choose the pet, but that would be wrong of me.

Liberty is about humans. It is about doing what is right to other people. "Don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." You don't have a right to do things you know will ultimately harm people who have not harmed others. And all "laws" are eventually enforced with death for those who don't submit in time. Helping the drug warriors get a tool to use against the innocent seems to violate the principles of libertarianism.

Cruelty to animals is a sign that I read as "Stay away! Danger! I am cruel and enjoy hurting living things. You or your child might be next!" But sacrificing an animal to rescue a person, even if the animal suffers in the situation, seems the proper response, to me.

As I mentioned in my comments, if I manufactured guns or ammo, I would NOT want any of them getting into government hands. I would not sell to anyone who I knew would provide them to any agent of The State. If I didn't know what was happening, that's different (but I would put an end to it as soon as I discovered it).

But I accept that I could be wrong. I might be allowing my feelings to cloud my thinking. Either way, this doesn't change my opinion of Claire in any way, and I hope my disagreement doesn't upset her.

.

Are "peace officers" a good idea?

No. And I'm not even talking about the reavers. I'm saying it is a bad idea to have anyone set apart, with a badge and "authority".

Yes, I know that the original idea was that a "peace officer" had no authority that wasn't held by any individual in the general population, but was supposed to be someone paid in order to free his time to devote to "keeping the peace". How has that worked out?

Even the notion of "policing" is a bad thing. It's my job to "police" my own sphere. No one can do that for me better than I can- all anyone else could do is interfere. There is no need for a "special" class to do it, and when established that "special class" will inevitably evolve into the abomination we suffer under now.

Because, if I am "policing" my own life, and I go beyond the limits of protecting myself and my property (or the self and property of someone else), I am responsible for my actions and will be held accountable. Reavers are almost invariably found (by their own gang) to be acting "within department guidelines"- even when guilty of the most obvious acts of evil.

.

Freedom from religion

Regardless of what some "conservatives" claim, freedom of religion does- at least in some circumstances- mean freedom from religion.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution has to say on the matter, either. All the First Amendment says is that the government is prohibited from setting up an "official American Church" or from stopping anyone from worshiping however they see fit.

But don't get scared. It doesn't mean you have to shut up about your religion just because it annoys some people. It doesn't mean you have to stop practicing your religion.

What freedom of/from religion does mean, is that if you are in a position where you have power over someone else, rightly or wrongly, and that power is due to your government "job", you need to keep your religion in your pants, and keep your pants zipped. Until you are "off the clock", anyway. You have no authority to be preaching at people you are trying to coerce while they are paying you with money you had stolen from them on your behalf.

It means that what you believe on your own time is your business, but trying to pass or enforce "laws" based upon your religious beliefs- Sharia Law- is outside of what you have a right to do. It means using stolen money to promote your religious beliefs- any religious beliefs- is wrong.

Freedom of religion equals, in many cases, freedom from religion. Whether you like it or not. And believe me, even those who claim otherwise usually demand to be free of having other religions' ideas forced upon them- they just don't want to stop doing the forcing themselves. At least, that's what I have observed.

.

State not necessary for good life

State not necessary for good life

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 13, 2012.)

Many of my favorite things to do in and around Clovis are at government-owned locations. Which is kind of sad.

I really enjoy the zoo, the library, Goodwin Lake Trails, and Oasis State Park, just to name a few things off the top of my head. And, since I pay for them whether I use them or not, above and beyond any applicable entrance fees, I might as well take advantage of them.

I just see how much better those good things could be if they were voluntarily-financed and freed from the shackles of government. In some cases I can see improvements that could be implemented right away, and in other cases I see things that could make a big difference in the long-term. If, that is, innovations were encouraged, as is normally the case when something has a clear individual owner.

Of course, in our current situation government would still exert control over their daily operations through permits, licenses, red tape, taxation, and arbitrary regulations. That is the reality of the economic model known as "fascism"- where the business sphere is supposedly privately owned, but in practice The State dictates how business must be done; acting as the de facto owner.

Some people worry that if government doesn't provide something, no one will. I don't think that's ever the case except for those things no one really wants. Even if it were the case, I would do without something I enjoyed, without complaining, if it couldn't be voluntarily provided. At least people who don't enjoy the same things I do wouldn't be forced to subsidize my activities. There is nothing I want bad enough to force you to pay for it on my behalf.

Plus, if I decided I really wanted it, I would find a way to provide it. For example, ignoring the current regulatory climate for a moment, if I wanted a zoo and there wasn't one close enough, why couldn't I start my own? I could obtain the animals I like the best, or some I think people would gladly pay to come see, and design and create an attractive setting in which to house and view them. If I let the displays get filthy, or let the animals get sick, people wouldn't want to come spend money, and I would lose customers, so it would be in my best interest to keep things neat, clean, and healthy. No coercion involved.

Government is not necessary for a good life full of enriching activities. I pity those who have forgotten that beautiful fact.

.

Serving leftovers

Do you ever read the old posts on this blog? Without me linking to them, I mean.

So many times anymore, something I think I should write about will occur to me and then I realize I have already written about that in the past. I could just re-post those, maybe with a bit of an update, but that seems dishonest.

Just today I was dwelling on something I read on another blog where people were saying they would use violence against someone who offended them. I was going to write something about how you are welcome to act on that which offends you, as long as you don't attack in person or through government, but then I realized I have written that same thing so many times. Is it worth writing again, linking to, or should I just move on to other issues?

.

Avoid the personality cult

The case of the activist-turned-informant illustrates why you shouldn't get caught up in any one person. Not Ron Paul. Not Thomas Jefferson. Not Ayn Rand. Not Henry David Thoreau. Not anyone.

Weigh a person's words for yourself. See if what they are saying is true and whether it works for you. Don't worry so much about who said what. Don't even get too caught up in whether the person who said the words, lives by them. Who knows, they might be right in what they say, but they may not believe themselves. Or they may be weak. Or a self-deceiver.

You are smart enough to work things out for yourself. Other people can give you ideas and make you see things in news ways- perhaps get you to recognize connections you hadn't seen before- but ultimately you have to think for yourself and act on what you decide. Regardless of what anyone else may do.

Seriously, if I imagined that anyone was too wrapped up in what I write, I'd get really worried about them. I hope I give you ideas, but I am not anyone's paragon. And neither is anyone else.

That being said, I am probably my own worst critic and harshest judge.

.

Accepting consequences of outlawry

You may or may not know about the recent uproar that came about when a respected liberty activist was found to be working as a police informant.

It makes me really sad.

Do you have an absolute human right to use, sell, and purchase any substances you want? Yes. But, as I have said many times, it may not be smart to do so in the current circumstances in which we find ourselves. You have to weigh the consequences and decide if it is worth it to you right now- in case you are caught.

We are ALL outlaws, so we had better accept that fact and start doing things to protect ourselves from the real bad guys- the ones with badges and government jobs. And remember that if you are doing something that the Rulers forbid, it is your responsibility and you shouldn't turn on other people if you get caught just to try to strike a deal with the bad guys. Well, maybe report the mayor or police chief for something, but not non-aggressive people.

.

Drive throughs installed- cheap

A few evenings ago we were out in the front yard- I was watering our attempt at garden plants- when my daughter's mom ("Dm") said "That car just ran into that house!"

I looked up and the car was still moving forward- into the house. The back tires were still spinning, kicking up quite a cloud of dust. The car had gone right into the front door and was pushing the porch roof up and kinda over. Then the brake lights came on and the tires stopped spinning.

The car slowly backed out of the house, and I thought the porch roof was going to fall since it was lurching back and forth. A woman got out of the car and started yelling "Oh my god! Oh my god!" over and over. There was another car in front of the house and a couple of girls got out of it and kinda milled around.

"Dm" decided she needed to go over there and get into the middle of it. I stayed in the yard and looked through my spyglass. It seemed no one was injured, just upset.

I guess by the time she got there (just around the corner from us) the driver had sat down and wasn't talking anymore; just crying. She had run into her own house.

I think it was a case of putting the car into drive by accident, instead of reverse, then, when the car started forward, panicking and hitting the gas instead of the brakes. (One of my second wife's sisters did that and ran through the front of a convenience store.)

The cop and sheriff showed up almost immediately. The sheriff didn't stay too long. The cop talked to everyone there and put "caution" tape around the gaping hole where the front door and a window were kinda dangling in the rubble of what had been a wall. "Dm" said he told them they couldn't stay there until the house had been inspected to see if it was going to fall down. He tried to get "Dm" to say she thought drugs were involved, or that one of the woman's kids had been driving. Then he left.

No person was hurt, and the house is now under repair. What I couldn't help wondering is why the situation "needed" a cop, and who called them. The cop didn't actually help the situation in any way (do they ever?). At least he didn't arrest anyone.

.

Time Magazine's breastfeeding cover

Yeah, like all of you, I've seen it. Seriously, I don't get the uproar. It's fairly obvious to me that two people who are old enough to consent to having their pictures on the cover of a magazine shouldn't have anyone else dictate their actions for them.

(I'm joking. Sorta. They're really claiming that large person who is attached at the boob is 3 years old? I am not sure I am falling for that.)

.

"Does the 2nd Amendment..." No, it doesn't!

Being human gives you the right to own and to carry arms.

The Second Amendment makes it a serious crime for the US government, or any of its "subordinate" mobs, to violate or tamper with that right in any way.

Pro-gun folks get confused on that issue almost as much as the anti-human gun banners do.

I get tired of the polls that ask "Does the Second Amendment give you the right to own a gun?" Because the answer is obviously "no", but if you answer that way it looks like you are voting with the genocide fan club.

.

North Carolina and gay marriage

Are you unhappy about the North Carolina marriage vote? I have a solution. Or at least a tactic.

If you are a North Carolina resident who is going to get married soon- whatever your gender or orientation, do so without asking the state's permission. Regardless if you are marrying a person of your own sex (or a couple of people of whatever sex). Just do it.

If you are a person who does not reside in NC but are planning to get married soon, travel to NC with a willing "officiator" and get married. Without the state's paperwork. Maybe with news cameras rolling.

Thumb your nose at the state by doing what it says, by vote, that you aren't allowed to do.

Just think if North Carolina became the gay marriage capitol (and otherwise unpapered marriage capitol) of the world as a result of this "law". Hehe.

.

You do NOT have a right...

Since all legitimate rights are "negative rights", or, as some people put it "rights are imaginary"- what does that mean?

It means you do NOT have a right to:

• Take away someone's tools of self defense or tell them they can't defend themselves from attacks.

• Tell someone what substances they can introduce into their own body.

• Take a person's property from him without his consent.

• Forbid a couple (or more) from forming a family unit based upon mutual consent.

• Rule a person, or otherwise dictate his non-coercive, non-deceptive behavior.

All "positive rights" would violate one or more of these ethical guidelines. And, even if rights don't really exist, the list is still accurate and binding.

.

Feds deserve blame for gas prices

Feds deserve blame for gas prices

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 6, 2012)

Let me take a wild-eyed guess: You are unhappy about the rising price of gasoline. I'll make another guess: You are blaming the wrong people.

Most people place the blame on oil companies and ignore the reality. Without government interference, prices would be much lower than they are. How much lower? We will never know until we make separation of business and state an enforced reality.

People get upset over claims that BigOilCo pays no taxes. By this I assume they mean corporate income taxes or some-such thing. The truth is that no company ever pays any taxes; their customers do. If an oil company "pays" taxes, the extra expense will be added to the cost of production and you will pay all those taxes at the pump and when you buy your food, water, clothes, electricity, and everything else. The added expense has to be passed along or the company will cease to be. That's just basic economics, which means it is beyond the thinking capacity of government.

At each step of the way, before the gasoline gets in your tank, taxes are rolled in as a cost of doing business. This is in addition to the regulations of every sort which also increase the price. All that red tape is expensive and you ultimately pay for it.

Then governments stick it to you, personally, at the point of sale by adding even more taxes on top of everything else they have collected so far.

Then there are also the problems that official and covert government intervention causes in the countries where much of the oil is being produced. Meddling, threatening, and otherwise making enemies of those who should be trading partners; not subjects of the growing Empire, being told how to run their own countries.

On top of all this is the protection of the fuel monopoly. Nothing so far discovered works as well as petroleum for fueling vehicles. Nothing. And, yes, I have owned an electric car. Stifling innovation, through more regulations and red tape, in the development of new technology that might make internal combustion obsolete, or actually efficient, prevents real solutions from being found and implemented.

The final 800-pound gorilla in the room is the misnamed phenomenon of "Inflation". Inflation is not the price of gasoline rising; it is the value of a dollar falling. An ounce of silver still buys about the same amount of gasoline it did back when the US dollar was backed by by something of value and our "silver" coins were really silver. The counterfeiting operation at the Federal Reserve has stolen the value of your labor by replacing your money with empty promises. It takes more of these counterfeit "dollars" to buy a gallon of fuel.

Let's blame the real bad guys, not their other victims.

.

The sum of my experiences...

I am a sum of my past.

Throughout my life I have gone through phases, and although sometimes those phases may seem, to an observer, to have ended, they have all left their mark. They have each been incorporated into the me that now exists.

I was thinking about this as I was out throwing my tomahawk. I have not been to a mountainman rendezvous in several years. I don't wear buckskin clothes exclusively anymore. I don't even wear my mountainman hat very often. Yet the skills and experiences from that part of my life are just as strong in me and just as important a part as they ever were. And, often, still just as useful. They changed the way I look at the world completely and I can never go back. Someday, I may even get back into the lifestyle again.

Every other phase I have lived has left the same indelible mark on my life. They have made me who I am. Each time was another case of "taking the red pill".

If I ever decide to stop speaking out- educating?- about liberty I expect the same results. The things I have learned by digesting my own thoughts, and the thoughts I have had shared with me by others, mean I can never go back to the way I was before. And for that, I'm glad.

.

Attempted crimes- no victim?

(From a discussion on facebook.)

Is an attempted "crime" a victimless crime? I don't believe it is. And I, of course, mean actual aggression, coercion, theft, or other violations of life, liberty, and property- not the ridiculous things The State seeks to forbid that have nothing to do with those real wrong things.

In order to attempt an initiation of force or theft, even if you fail to complete your intention, you have to have a target- a "victim"- in mind. That falls under threatening to initiate force, or violating property rights. Anyone on the receiving end of your intention to do them harm would not be wrong to use force to stop you from completing your intended action. How much force? How much will it take? How much adrenaline did your threat release in your intended victim, and how can you be sure "momentum" won't take them further than you think is "appropriate" under the circumstances?

But, as in the case discussed on the facebook thread linked above, the victim can't be imaginary or "society". That's like punching shadows. You may have an intention of doing someone harm, but there is no one there to be harmed.

.

Government and the free market

Somewhere I came across something that mentioned "government" and "the free market" in the same thought. If ever two things don't belong together, that's it.

There is nothing any government can do to contribute to free markets or to liberty of any kind. All governments can do is destroy them. Anything and everything they do has that effect. Either by design or through unintended consequences.

.

Divergence

This guy was my next door neighbor all during my teenage years. We had a lot of adventures together. Now he seems to be promoting a one-sided view of America that could lead to a theocracy.

Because, lets face it, a religious outlook was a part of the founders' basis for the America they established, but so was a rational view that wanted to make certain that America wouldn't become a theocracy or allow religion to be controlled by The State or The State to be controlled by any particular religion.

My vision for a free society would have room for him to worship in any way he believes is right. Would his America, "returned to God", have any room for me?

It's funny to me that 2 people who had so much in common at one time could diverge so widely.

.

More than one kind of bad guy

I just had a flash of insight: statists don't realize there's more than one kind of bad guy. And that they are not justified, by the existence of one type of bad guy, in becoming another type of bad guy on order to get him.

.

A statist problem, or an imaginary one

Once again the internet predators hereabouts are pretending to be kids and trying to entrap people into seeking sex.

And, once again, I am just about the only one (with one exception) who thinks this is a bad thing. No victim = no crime. It really is that simple.

Anyway, as I was responding to the coercion/theft fan club, one thing suddenly occurred to me, and I'll copy the relevant part of my comment here:

I've known several libertarians whose daughters had unlimited internet access from the time they were toddlers and could figure out how to operate a computer and not one fell victim to an online sexual predator. This seems to be strictly a statist/non-libertarian problem (if it really is a problem at all). Maybe some people need to better educate their kids about the real world instead of advocating doing evil things "for the children".

So, there you have it. Am I imagining this or have I hit on something?

*

(The guy who has been entrapped is an army recruiter. And, if you know me, you know I have zero love for the military or those who entrap young people into signing up, so I could have just laughed that turnabout is fair play. But I don't operate that way. Wrong is wrong.)

.

"Guilt-by-association" is not fair, but...

I understand that people look at me, see my appearance and/or behavior, and make judgments. Those judgments may not be "fair", but they will be made. Even less "fair" is when the judgments made about me are applied to other people who are not me, or when judgments made about other people who are like me in some way, but who aren't me, are applied to me. Maybe because they also have long hair, or wear a hat, or call themselves a libertarian.

Because I don't want people judging me for things I didn't do, but that were done by someone who is seen as similar to me in some way, I cringe when people who are bound to be associated with me are seen doing something I would be ashamed of doing.

If this happens I am likely to loudly condemn the one taking the "bad" action in order to make it known I do not approve and I am not "like" that person. It's why I hate it when a statist tries to claim the label "libertarian" without having any qualities of libertarian in them. It's also why I address those who try to condemn libertarians without having any clue what "libertarian" means. If you're going to pre-judge me, at least get your facts straight.

If I am silent, then when people prejudge me for things other people- whom they associate with me in some way- do, then I shouldn't be surprised. To then whine about "prejudice" or "discrimination" is stupid. It is in your power to fight it, but not if you don't address the cause. And that root "cause" is almost never really about what you believe it is about. It's not about skin color, "culture", the way you dress, or things like that- no, it's about actions, responsibility, and consequences.

A vast majority of the people I see, with my own eyes, doing things that bother me in this town, are of a particular "ethnic group". Noticing this is not racism. Most of the people in that ethnic group are not doing those things, and I see bad things that people of other ethnic groups do and I don't cut them any slack, either. But, the majority of the property damage, theft, and aggression that I see or hear about in this area (not to mention littering, and most violations of counterfeit "laws", which I don't even count as being bad at all) is done by a small number of individuals, and it just so happens that most of those individuals belong to the same ethnic group.

If you don't like people thinking poorly of your ethnic group- or whatever group you may be included in by people who don't know you- then you really should do something to set yourself apart. Or, even try to fix the problem if it is within your power to do so. I certainly try to when it's my "guilt-by-association" cropping up. Because it may not be right, and it certainly isn't "fair", but it is reality. It will happen, so deal with it.

.

Thousands of innocents dead

Assuming for a moment that the government story about the "9/11" attacks are true... is it worse to kill 3000 presumably innocent people in one day, or 3000 presumably innocent people over the course of a year or two? Or many times that number over a longer stretch of time? Just as the US government has been doing and continues to do in all the middle east countries that are being punished for "9/11". Who's the terrorist? I keep forgetting, and I can't tell them apart based on their behavior and the outcome.

.

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.

.