Blaming the Victim

I'm sure you have noticed, as have I, that frequently when we hear of a murder, rape, or other crime of violence, people say "if he hadn't been in the wrong part of town..." (whatever that means), or "if only she hadn't been dressed like that", or "you shouldn't flash money around that way", or some other drivel.

This is just blaming the victim.

It is a psychological defense mechanism that allows us to delude ourselves that if only we behave a certain way, bad things will never happen to us, personally.

I see a similar phenomenon in libertarian thought on occasion. Instead of blaming the heartless cop who is "only enforcing the law", or the soulless reavers of the IRS who steal the livelihood from our friends and neighbors, or the mindless bureaucrats who take up valuable space, some will blame their victims.

They insist that others fight back as "they" believe they ought to, instead of seeing that they may have too much at stake to make a scene at this time. Or they may simply have other priorities.

If you refuse to submit to a "driver's license", or ignore income taxes, or reject a "Social Security Number"; if you build without a permit, or carry a gun without government permission, or any of the other nice ways we can fight back, then that is wonderful. I support your defiance 100%. Just do not despise your neighbor whose family would not survive if she went to jail or got murdered for refusing to cooperate with the government thugs. She is not the problem; she is the victim. Blaming the victim is a mental problem that hides reality from your conscious mind.

(From the archives. Originally posted on September 6, 2006. Updated.)

.

No one represents you in election

No one represents you in election

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

Obama or Romney. Or, should that be "Obamney"?

It is amusing to watch the election promoters trying to make the anointed presidential candidates look different from one another. Especially when it means they are now promoting a candidate they had vigorously opposed mere months ago. Every time election season oozes across the landscape I feel sorry for voters; especially in a case where there is no substantive difference between the candidates they will be allowed to choose from. I empathize with their desperation.

Most voters will try to justify their new-found support for Candidate X. The honest voters will say "Sure it's a bad choice, but what else can I do? Just give up?"

Well, sure, you could do that, but it's not necessary.

In my opinion as a libertarian, a vote for a Democrat or Republican is always a wasted vote. For that matter, any vote is probably always a wasted vote, since no one can ever truly "represent" another person, other than on a one-to-one basis. Even then it's iffy and you can easily be betrayed. Almost no aspect of life should be subject to majority opinion or control, anyway. Society can't be "run".

However, if you still feel the need to vote, only vote for a third party candidate. You are still legitimizing an illegitimate and completely broken "system", but at least your vote won't go toward the person/party that the mainstream media and the government want you to believe to be your only option.

Another choice you always have is to refuse to play a rigged game. Withdraw consent and walk away. That's not "giving up". If you are playing cards against someone who has mirrors arranged so that he can see the cards you hold, who has a stash of aces (or whatever he might need) in his lap, and who gets to have final say in any dispute you might have concerning the outcome of the game, why would you keep sitting there and placing bets? The situation in politics is even less honest.

This realization can free you to spend your time and energy elsewhere. Instead of waiting for some politician to do things you feel are important, start the ball rolling yourself. Instead of waiting for tax money to be allocated to your cause, publicize your cause and get voluntary donations. Instead of advocating a "law" to force people to act as though they agree with your or your cause, convince them. And if all that fails go on without their help- leaving them free to go their own way. It's how decent people operate. Let's bring decency back to life.

.

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need ... roads!

Building onto the "eminent domain" theme has me thinking about roads.

I am frequently asked how we will have roads if there is no government road program or fuel taxes.

Note that this isn't "the only way" roads might work in a free society, but only a possible solution. The reality would probably be different than I can even imagine.

I think that all roads should be private property. Everyone would own the road that runs through their property. Or if it runs along a boundary, they would own the half of the road that is on their side of the property line.

Now, If I owned half of the road in front of my property, would I want the bother of maintaining it, and the liability if someone were driving on it and was in an accident? No, I wouldn't. Would I close off the road to travelers? I wouldn't, but I am sure some folks would. That would be their choice. Would there be any profit in keeping the road open? Yes. (Plus, businesses have a vested interest in keeping roads open so that customers can get to them.)

No one, including me, wants a stupid toll-booth every hundred feet or so. So what would happen?

I think that the market would soon find a workable solution. My hunch is that companies would form which would buy or lease roads from land-owners, taking on all costs and liabilities, but also most of the profits. These companies (not "corporations", which are a government creation) would probably sell a form of travel insurance or something of the sort that would permit travel upon their roadways and also guarantee against road hazards, and maybe even mechanical problems.

They could also sell or lease out business locations along the shoulders.

There would probably not be enforcers and roadblocks along the road. If a road's owner allowed this to happen, competitors could profit by offering an alternative. Bad traffic problems would be a cause to find a real solution, and "one size fits all" wouldn't be the name of the game. Traffic signals could be dispensed with by those who are aware of the problems they cause.

If you think this sounds unreasonable, go back to the title of this post. If this solution didn't make everyone happy, what would happen? What would stop inventors from creating vehicles that don't use roads? It has already been done. The biggest stumbling block along this line has been (for over 50 years) the government regulations which cripple innovation with red tape and inertia. Does the FAA sound familiar?

So you will have a choice: use the roads and pay a fee (or have the fee absorbed into the cost of doing business) which would undoubtedly be less than the fuel taxes you pay now, or leave the surface entirely.

The sky is no limit when you have liberty.

(From the archives. Originally posted September 5, 2006. Updated.)

.

"Eminent Domain"

This is just a fancy way of describing theft by government.

I realize this is a long-established practice, but it is still wrong. Making something "legal" can't make it right- not even when the Supreme Courtjesters uphold it.

If you or I desperately want a certain piece of property, we must come up with the owner's asking price or find another piece of land. We can't force the owner to accept a bad deal. Disappointment stinks, but that is reality.

Government should not own land, much less steal it. (And, in fact "owns" nothing it didn't steal or "buy" with stolen money.) There is no such thing as "the common good" so using that excuse for theft is empty.

(From the archives. Originally posted September 05, 2006- slightly updated)

.

The Constitution was poison from the first

Need proof that the Constitution is a poisonous dose of tyranny, rather than the beacon of liberty some patriots believe it is? The so-called "fifth page of the Constitution" was recently unveiled to the public, and the article mentions that the "sixth page" is apparently lost, but there are transcripts. On this sixth page is proof that the Constitution was a compromise with evil from the very beginning. Boston T. Party has been proved right.

George Washington admitted this in a note (the "sixth page") to Arthur St. Clair, the president of the Congress when the Constitution was adopted. Washington explained the justification behind the new, stronger central government. He exposed himself as no better than Obamney or Bloomie or any other parasitical puppetician or tyrant in recent history.

He said:

“Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.”

Is it clear to you yet?

.

Division of labor

It's a little frustrating when someone claims that by not voting nor being "politically involved" I am doing nothing to promote liberty. The truth is, liberty is not popular enough to win votes on a large enough scale to "win"- even if it were possible to vote yourself free.

So, you can agitate and advocate and campaign for a candidate (or cause) that you believe is pro-liberty, but even if he really is... no, especially if he really is, he will not win. (This is assuming against all evidence that the system isn't rigged to make certain he doesn't win.) The voters are not ready yet. They still care more about what some collectivist puppetician is promising to steal from someone else and give to them. Or who some parasitical politician is promising to "protect" them from. And chances are if he really does win after all your support, he'll betray you and reject liberty once he gets into office.

But, maybe your political activism will get some people to consider the idea of real liberty. Stranger things have happened. But then you have divided your time and effort. I simply choose to put almost all my efforts at this time into making the ground fertile for liberty to take root. I am trying to pave the way by making people ready for liberty so that if political action is helpful to the cause of liberty you'll someday have a receptive audience. And if it isn't helpful, we haven't put all our eggs in one basket.

You do what you think will help and I'll do the same.

.

My encounter with a hardened criminal

Her- out of the blue: "I'm breaking the law."

Me: "So? I promise not to tell on you."

Her: "I've already been warned."

Me: "We're all breaking the law, so don't worry about it. If we worried about all the laws we break everyday we'd just worry all the time."

The above conversation was between me and a sweet little old lady* who had committed the heinous crime of walking her happy Pomeranian to the post office, and taking him inside.

She seemed, at first, truly upset that she was a lawbreaker. I don't know her history. Maybe she spend a lifetime agitating for the police state we now live in. But, in that moment, I believe she "got it".

We are all outlaws, and it's OK. Really.

(*There was also an elderly man going through his mail at the same time, agreeing with everything I was saying.)

.

Think! Before you embarrass yourself.

Hey, Statist. When you justify The State and its "taxation" by bringing up roads, fire fighters, mail delivery, defense, and the abuses of corporations, it shows a certain blind spot in your thinking processes.

Why do you believe those things you list can only be accomplished through coercion and theft? Because if you believe government alone can do them, that is what you are claiming. Don't scoff; those are the only tools government has that are not generally available to the rest of us (without dire consequences, anyway). Do you not believe those things can be done voluntarily instead? If something can't be done voluntarily it shouldn't be done at all.

And, why do you believe The State is necessary for prosperity, and that corporations are the problem? The biggest barrier to prosperity is the government/corporations. There is no distinction. You may believe government is "necessary" but this just shows you haven't thought it through sufficiently.

.

Heart and Brain

Long ago I heard something to the effect that if you were young and conservative it meant you didn't have a heart, but if you were mature and liberal it meant you didn't have a brain.

I'd say that was half right, it just ignored the other half of the truth. To have a heart AND a brain means you are libertarian.

.

No loopholes in libertarianism

No loopholes in libertarianism

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 10, 2012)

It's usually nice when you run across something that confirms what you already thought to be true. However, "nice" doesn't really get you anywhere if you care about truth. The best way to find out whether or not something is true is to try as hard as you can to disprove it. Therefore I keep trying to disprove libertarianism to myself.

I know that's not how people normally operate (Me? Normal?), but unless you search for flaws in what you believe to be true, you never get any closer to the real truth. So I am continually looking for loopholes. Perhaps, deep down I suspect, or fear, that those who claim libertarianism can't work in the real world may be right. Maybe this is because I am exposed, on a daily basis, to so many who try to justify their opposition. They seem to believe the only thing keeping everyone (other than themselves, of course) from becoming mass-murdering thieves is the threat of governmental punishment.

So I keep searching. After all, I'd rather BE right than BELIEVE I'm right.

I try to find the instance where it really is necessary or ethical to be the first to throw a punch; to "initiate force" in the parlance of libertarians. I look for those cases where taking property from its rightful owners for "the common good" really is the right thing to do. I look for examples where a problem was honestly solved by using the coercive force of The State.

So far, despite my best efforts, I have consistently come up empty.

Sure, there have been times I thought I had found the crack in the wall. Usually it came as a result of someone passionately trying to justify their opposition to something I had written. Each time, for a moment, I thought to myself that perhaps this was "it"; the exception to the rule. Every single time it turned out I wasn't thinking the problem- or the consequences of the "solution"- through sufficiently. I wasn't working from principles, but giving in to fuzzy thinking or emotionalism, or ignoring human nature and reality.

The people who hate the principles of liberty the most, and forcefully inform me of their opinion, are the ones who offer me the best tools to try to find the flaws I seek in libertarianism. For that I appreciate them. I wonder how many of them take the equal opportunity I offer for searching out the flaws in statism.

.

September 11: Consequences Day

I've been calling September 11th "Blowback Day" for years. Thinking about it today I decided that needs to change. Blowback is only one aspect of the date; just one of the consequences.

Henceforth this date, September 11th, shall be called "Consequences Day".

The events of September 11, 2001 (regardless of what actually happened or who was actually behind it) were the consequences of past actions coming home to roost.

It was the consequence of mandating inadequately armed airline passengers.

It was the consequence of allowing a federal government to run rampant- killing, blockading, embargoing, occupying, manipulating, spying, threatening, bullying, robbing, and many other evil actions- all over the globe.

It was the consequence of permitting stupid and evil people to demonize defensive violence and make no distinction between types of violence.

It was the consequence of teaching people to go along quietly with those who mean to do them harm.

It was the consequence of the past couple of centuries of statism.

It was the consequence of choosing false "security" over liberty.

It was the consequence of trusting government.

It seems few people have learned anything from the tragic consequences of this date in history.

.

Friends don't let friends rule

OK, maybe they "let" them; they just don't support them.

Just because I might like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson doesn't mean I want either of them to rule me or my neighbors. I'll bet I'd enjoy sitting down to talk with either of these men. Whether they would enjoy talking to me is another matter.

The fact that I thoroughly dislike Obamney, in whichever incarnation, only adds to the fact that it can never rule me. I'll bet I would have a hard time remaining civil during a chat with Obamney.

I don't need a president, and neither do you. Let those who do believe they need one play the game, and let's ignore the results of their stupidity.

Oh, and "happy" Blowback Day.

.

"Render ... unto Caesar..."

Here's a familiar passage (choose your translation):

"Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?

Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

This little exchange has been the genesis (pun intended) of a lot of Christian statism. For no good reason.

I would say that all this means is "don't steal". Render unto "Caesar"... Let's get rid of the name Caesar. Perhaps then we can see it more clearly. Render unto "Bob" that which belongs to Bob. Don't claim Bob's stuff as your own, and if you are in possession of Bob's stuff, give it back to him. I don't think it means you have to give Bob anything of yours that he did not earn in a completely voluntary fashion.

Does your money belong to Caesar- or in current terms, The State- just because The State says it does? Ridiculous! Only those things which are the rightful property of The State need to be handed over to The State.

What does The State rightfully own? You? Your life? The fruits of your labor? NO! The State, every State, possesses nothing it did not steal or "buy" with stolen (including counterfeited) money.

Render unto Caesar, or Bob, whatever you want to, including whatever you feel you must to avoid being murdered by him, but don't ever feel guilty for keeping what is yours. And never again use this passage as justification for "taxation" or a State.

.

The danger of having a State

A free society, one without a centralized government, doesn't need to worry too much about being invaded and conquered. This is one of the "yeah, but what if"s that people present in opposition to true liberty. They think that without Washington DC, and it's armed goons, keeping out the invaders, Chinese troops (or whoever the speaker personally fears) will overrun America and annex us.

Then there's reality.

Consider this recent offering from Fred Reed concerning why it is so hard for empires to defeat one particular region:

"In Afghanistan there are no targets of high value to destroy, no clear lines of supply to be cut, no cities whose capture means you win, and no concentrations of enemy to be easily killed."

And this is in a region where there is little liberty. Add real liberty to that equation and the odds are stacked even more in favor of the home team. Without a city to capture and win, you have to defeat each and every individual. It won't happen.

The State endangers me and it endangers you. Stop pretending otherwise.

.

The 2012 Obamney election pageant

I wish I had the whole clip where they debate the "titanium tax" with the lines:

"I say your 3 cent titanium tax goes too far"

"And, I say YOUR 3 cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough"


.

Liberty Lines, September 6, 2012

(Published in the Farwell, Texas/Texico, New Mexico, State Line Tribune)

Everyone creates something. Shoemakers create shoes. Blacksmiths create ironworks. Bakers create bread. And, apparently, city councils create criminals.

The slew of new ordinances proposed recently will do nothing but make more people into lawbreakers. It is inevitable. Then the resultant "crime spree" will be pointed to as justification for even more controls and stiffer enforcement.

Aren't all the real bad things (and a lot more) already illegal? Instead of creating new laws for people to break, deal with the true offenses- theft, destruction of property, and aggression; the "mala in se" (bad in and of themselves) acts. No "mala prohibita" ("bad" just because we say so) offenses need to be dreamed up or enforced, as America- including Farwell- is already being crushed under an avalanche of them.

Just because the state of Texas or some international code (part of Agenda 21- look it up) says you have to impose certain rules on those of us in Farwell, that is no reason to comply. There is an honorable tradition known as "nullification" wherein a bad legal example is not emulated. It only takes a little courage.

There is one way I could back new rules: for each new liberty-infringing rule passed, twenty currently-enforced ordinances must be abolished. At least until a level of maturity is reached where people are ashamed to obsess over what the neighbors might be doing.

Liberty is becoming a rare commodity. Let's stop outlawing it. Stop violating the property rights and the individual liberties of those who live around you. It's just the right thing to do.

.

The hypocrisy of the statist

One thing that constantly crops up as a source of mild amusement- and occasional frustration- is that the same people who have a problem with my lack of respect for The State (and other governments) feel they can ignore certain "laws" without being hypocritical.

I tend to obey most "laws" that aren't a matter of life and death, especially when the risk of being caught is high and the consequences are steep. Yet, some of the people I am referring to ignore "laws" very openly and still look down on me for the "laws" I express scorn for. And they would be shocked! if they faced consequences for getting caught breaking those "laws".

One person, upon discovering that the local "city" council had just adopted a bunch of new ordinances- some of which would negatively affect his life- was at least honest enough to admit "Now MY ox is being gored."

It must be painful to be a statist.

.

Gun laws won’t prevent deaths

Gun laws won’t prevent deaths

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 3, 2012. The headline is similar to last week's (part 1?), but it's a totally different column. I promise!)

Wouldn't stronger laws or more strict enforcement stop people from killing the innocent with guns? For the life of me I can't figure out why it's supposedly worse to be murdered with a gun than with a knife, a brick, or a car, but let's skip that part.

The truth of the matter is that guns are a very old technology. That cat is out of the bag and it will not be stuffed back in. The only way to get rid of guns at this point is to eliminate every gunsmith and everyone who knows metallurgy, chemistry, physics, and mechanics; burn every book and ban any website on those subjects, as well as any which gives even a hint as to how a gun operates. Anyone with a bit of knowledge can figure out how to make a gun. You don't even need gunpowder nowadays. As long as a gun can equalize people, they will be built, carried, and used.

Strengthen the penalties? Increase the penalties for getting caught with a gun and you will remove any remaining reluctance to carrying a fully-automatic firearm. After all, if the penalty is comparable, why not go with the supposedly better tool?

All coercive gimmicks ignore the simple fact that the real solution is for more guns to be in the hands of decent people. It's the only thing that will ever work. Nothing will ever disarm people who want to harm the innocent. Nothing. It doesn't matter if you just really hate guns and want them to go away. You can whine about it; you can call gun owners nasty names, you can speculate on how to achieve Utopia. None of that will change reality. To hold back the bad guys you need to be able to stop them, and they need to know that if they try to harm people it is highly likely they will encounter someone like you who is willing and able to put an end to their rampage, no matter when or where they strike.

We are not talking about "chaos, with bullets flying everywhere" since the average gun owner won't pull the trigger until he knows his target and what's beyond it. We are talking about psychological deterrent and the ability to interfere with an active shooter's plans. Even with body armor, getting shot is painfully distracting and that distraction can save lives. There will still be tragedies. Nothing can prevent them all. Don't sacrifice your liberty for false hope, manufactured fear, and misplaced empathy.

.

Shared traits

A badger is not a chair. Both have four legs; both are made of matter- in the case of a wooden chair, mostly carbon like the badger- both cast shadows when in the light; both are affected by gravitational fields, and... well they have a whole host of traits in common. But a badger is still not a chair.

In the same way I am not a conservative or a liberal. I share some traits with both because, frankly, neither of them could be wrong on everything all the time. Where they pick the side of individual liberty- an accidental consequence of individual liberty fitting into one small aspect of their otherwise statist agenda- I will be on the same side. But where their statist agenda stomps on individual liberty they are on the wrong side and I don't side with them.

The amusing consequence is that I end up on mailing lists of statist groups for conservatives (probably due to my pro-self defense stance) and for liberals (probably due to my opposition to prohibition) where they try to sell me their toxic sewage along with the few diamonds they carry. Assuming that because I agree with them on the pro-liberty stuff, I will agree with them on their anti-liberty agenda, I get called a "empty-headed liberal" or a "knuckle-dragging conservative" by those who get offended by my refusal to give up liberty and buy into their fear-mongering.

They are too blind to see that a badger is not a chair, and too narrow minded to understand that a libertarian is not a statist.

.

"Social justice"

In the recent past I have seen more and more mentions of "social justice" from people calling themselves "libertarians". I have looked into it a bit in the past, but decided it was time to really give it an examination. After doing so I discovered something important: Ain't no such critter as "social justice". Sorry.

Of course, it looks good at first glance:

"Social justice" (From Wikipedia*) "... justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being."

That part sounds pretty good, other than the delusional belief that there are "classes" of people. And I might want to find out just how they define this "society" thing- I have seen some doozies there, too.

Justice, real justice, involves returning a person who has been stolen from or attacked to their pre-violation condition- or as close as possible. I see no evidence of anyone being stolen from or attacked here. Unless it is by the rulers and their BS rules (yet just who is supposed to be enforcing this "social justice" other than those rulers?)

Of course, there is no such thing as "equality" other than the equality of the rights each individual is born with. Those rights are identical in each and every individual human being.

And, what's this "solidarity" they speak of? I can't have "solidarity" with someone who is attacking innocent people or stealing from others. Or advocating that someone else do either of those evil things on their behalf. Now, someone who is being robbed or attacked, I can have "solidarity" with- and try to come to their aid- but not by harming those who weren't doing the attacking or robbing. That's just insane!

I've also never met an advocate of "social justice" who actually "understands and values human rights". I have met and read some who make up all sorts of "positive rights" [sic] that violate the right to not be a slave to any other person. And, there is no "dignity" in living that way- not for the victim of the slavery, nor for those feeding on it.

So, perhaps the pretty words are rather empty. Let's examine a bit farther...

"Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution."

So, advocating and carrying out blatant theft- as long as you steal a larger percentage from those who have more to steal- will somehow fulfill all the wishes in that first quoted part? I don't think so. In fact it completely violates every single thing they claim "social justice" to embrace. Collectivism is so self-contradictory!

The evil continues:

"These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system."

I'm sorry, gentle thieves, but where there is no "equality of opportunity" the best way to fix that problem is by eliminating "legal" red tape, cronyism, and regulation (all the crap that plops out of The State's orifice); not by giving the ones who create the problem more power to steal more.

And, "equality of outcome"? You've GOT to be kidding! The only way to achieve this is by killing everyone. Some risks pay off; some don't. Some people are smarter than others, luckier than others, or just have better skills or timing. That's reality whether you like it or not. It might not be "fair" according to your childish daydreams, but as Scott Adams says, fairness is "a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments".

Just because the methods some would employ to achieve a stated goal are disgusting doesn't automatically invalidate the goal itself... but in this case even the goal doesn't hold up to scrutiny or rational evaluation. Nope, I'm done with the idiotic religion of "social justice". Pursue it if you want, but it is not a libertarian ideal and if you try to use theft or coercion to impose it, I will fight you.

-

*Yes, I am aware of the limitations of relying too heavily on Wikipedia, so I also looked at other sources such as this one, this one, and this one- but at the core, they all advocated the same thing: "equality" through theft.

.

My Advice to Republicans

While you Republicans are wrong on half of the things you yap about, just like Democrats are, and I have gotten over the need to vote (although I still have empathy with the voters), I will offer you some advice. Take it or leave it.

You screwed yourselves badly by nominating Obamney 2.0. And now you are falling over your own feet trying to justify what you did, and trying to convince each other how great he is and how only he can save America from Obamney 1.0. Even "conservatives", who should despise the liberal extremist Republican candidate, are doing this.

You don't have to convince each other. You have already bought in. The only people who "like" your candidate are those voters who either despise the other candidate so much that they'd vote for a smelly gym sock soaked in goat urine if it were running against him, or those who will stick by anything as long as the GOP nominated it. You've got that vote locked up easily. But that's not enough to give you a win.

You've got to convince those people who basically see things as I do, but haven't yet walked away from the rigged game- those who still hold out hope that liberty can be increased by a vote. You can't win the election without them.

And most of those people are not stupid enough to vote for your chosen candidate. We see that he is just a mirror reflection of the other candidate- a thuggish goon who supports and advocates all the same crap the other thuggish goon advocates and supports.

You are committing suicide, Republican Party. I won't try to stop you- I only hope the Democrats do the same. But they won't unless something changes because they don't try to be exactly like you. That's purely a Republican trait.

So, if you actually want to become relevant, you will have to nominate people who scare you just a little. Candidates who are different. Candidates who will arouse deep hatred in liberals while they attract those who want something different from the bland offerings you keep serving up. In other words, you will have to become a little more libertarian.

Personally, I hope you don't. Liberty will suffer until the statists all make themselves so ridiculous to normal people that the spell is broken and the "same old thing" stops getting recycled. You're well on your way.

.

I want to be PERFECT...

...and it really irritates me when my human flaws- or reality- or the situation- prevent it.

Take the government school mess that has been tearing me up inside recently.

I so badly want my daughter out of that prison. But she wants to be there- for now, at least. And everyone who is in her life, other than me, wants her to be there too. So I will have to just accept the situation for now and deal with it the best I can, considering the circumstances.

Yes, it bothers me.

I guess this way I won't complain (out loud) about property "taxes" that I pay, since I don't want handouts, but expect to pay for what I use. Even if I'd prefer a voluntary alternative that is subject to market forces. (And I realize I am not getting a good return on my money, and am being delivered a load of unwanted sewage along with what I might willingly accept.)

I still don't want my childless neighbors (or those whose crotch-fruit don't attend government schools due to age or some other reason) to be robbed for my "benefit". But I'll try to shut up about this for the time being. And plan my subversion quietly.

.

Abolish slavery- abolish government schools

I don't understand why so many people are so anxious to defend government schools that they will attack anyone who questions the "system". This psychotic level of defensiveness is scary.

Is it because they don't want to be thought of as abusing their children if they send them to these drone factories?

Is it because they don't want to face the harm the government schools may have done to them?

Is it because "it's always been done this way"? Because it hasn't, you know.

Government schools are funded through theft. You can't teach anyone to be a decent person with that kind of example. Government schools are the reproductive organ of The State. Sure, some people do well in them. Humans are incredibly adaptive. Sure, you can learn things in government schools.

But "Schooling" is NOT the same as education. They are completely unrelated, except that schooling teaches people to obey "authority" figures- thank goodness many never really learn that lesson.

.

Bloomberg & Kelly: Laughingstocks

New York City's mayor Bloomie and New York's Reaver Queen, DeathRay Kelly, are now the laughingstock of America. It's about time.

These "only cops should have guns" idiots are still chanting their mantra even after their ridiculous premise was utterly destroyed when the NYC's badged reavers shot 9 innocent bystanders while killing a murderer near the Empire State Building. "Untrained" armed good guys couldn't have done worse, and have historically done a lot better.

I suppose the only way things could have been worse in the Aurora theater massacre is if some armed cops had been the only other armed people at the movie that night. Yet, this is exactly what Bloomie and DeathRay are still pushing for. Because only reavers have the "right training" to handle guns safely. Yeah, right.

.

Gun laws won't stop killers

Gun laws won't stop killers

(My Clovis News Journal/Portales News-Tribune column for July 27, 2012. Also, read "part 2".)

Once again, the inevitable results of "gun control" have claimed more innocent lives. And, once again, those whom the majority of the media fawn over have begun their ritual blood dance; blaming everything and everyone but the shooter for the murders.

Predictably they are calling for more violations of the fundamental right to own and to carry any type of weapon you see fit, wherever you go, in any manner you choose, without asking permission from anyone, ever. You have this right not because of the Second Amendment, or because of your citizenship, but because you were born a human being. A government can either respect this right or violate it. There is no middle ground.

No new laws could have prevented this massacre, nor could the enforcement of existing laws. People who have decided to murder don't worry about whether there is also a law prohibiting them from having a gun. They don't see a "No guns" sign and turn away in disappointment. No, they ignore those laws and walk right past that sign knowing that their grim task has been made much easier because most decent people will obey those dangerous rules even at the risk of their life- and the lives of their loved ones.

But what about the "mentally ill"? Shouldn't something be done to keep guns away from them? Any law that can forbid anyone from owning a gun can be used against you, too, and it still won't stop the bad guys from getting one anyway. Also consider that the anti-liberty bigots who don't want you to have a gun consider your determination to own one a "mental illness" that should disqualify you from owning one. It's a "catch 22" and you aren't permitted to diagnose yourself.

What about an outright ban? Even if you managed to get every gun away from every member of the public, you would also have to remove them from the hands of police and the military since any gun can be stolen, or sold for black market prices. This is what all prohibitions will always do for any product. Plus, guns are not that hard to build from scratch.

The people calling for more gun laws, stronger enforcement, or a bigger surveillance state "for safety" are ignoring reality in favor of feeling like something is being done. Next time I'll look at more of the problems with the failed social engineering experiment euphemistically called "gun control".

.

I am...

I am an anarchist. I don't believe in "rulers" or states, and believe the only government that has ever worked, or ever will, is self-government (self control). I don't look for anyone else to shoulder my responsibilities or save me from the consequences of my actions. I rule my own life even as others try to rule me. I would be an "enemy of the State" if I cared that much about such a silly group of clowns in funny hats.

(Re-posted from my facebook status a few days ago.)

Bad day.

This is a difficult day for me. A bad day.

My youngest daughter is starting kindergarten in a government school today. Against my wishes. But I have been outvoted.

She wants to go, because she loves being around other kids. And because she thinks "recess" is "school".

Her mom wants her to go because- well, I am not sure why but I have several unflattering theories.

My parents want her to go because they are "patriotic" statists who think government schools are great and necessary for education. And, I suspect, because they want to see her get "the other side" of the story- the pro-USA side- away from my influence. And probably because here the government school also pushes a religious agenda which they would like to see her exposed to. That, along with any exposure to the National Socialist "Pledge of Allegiance" or DARE will undoubtedly make for some interesting interactions for me. Interactions I do not look forward to.

I am not a tyrant, and believe my daughter should be allowed to choose for herself, but I also know that with her natural inclination, and the cheerleading for school coming at her from every person other than me, I lost the battle before it even began.

I had assumed from the beginning that I would be homeschooling/unschooling her. Now I feel I have failed her, even though she doesn't know it yet. I also feel lost and useless since I have been caring for her every hour of every day since she was born- five years ago tomorrow.

So I am in a really bad mood, which is not my normal condition.

.

My New Look!

An improvement, no?

Check out some other uses of this instant masterpiece on Claire's blog.

Troublemakers' associates don't like guns

I have made an observation about guns and those who dislike them.

People who have grown up around troublemakers (or have been troublemakers, themselves) don't like gun ownership. Most other people are either neutral on the subject or appreciate gun ownership.

Is it because the hoplophobes are afraid that the troublemakers in their lives will be using the guns to create crime, or because the troublemakers will be neutralized by a good guy who doesn't want to be victimized? I suspect it is, after listening to some of these people.

.

Fame!

I think I have just the right amount of fame. Enough that (some) people listen to what I say so that the message about liberty gets into more brains, but not enough that I have to worry about the negative aspects. Crazy people aren't following me around or trying to shoot me. So maybe I have the best of both worlds.

Well, I would appreciate some groupies...

And money...

But other than that...

.

Factions become fractions

Why are there so many factions of libertarian? And of liberty-lover? And of "Three-percenter"?

I think it's because everyone wants to take the foundational concept and put their own "spin", their own little memorial, on top of it. Unfortunately that memorial becomes a tombstone.

That tombstone may involve "borders", or "anti-big business" (usually, actually anti-free-market and pro government regulation), or anti-sexuality, or anti-politically-incorrect drugs, or whatever else the people are willing to make an exception to permit State coercion for.

It's why we have factions of "left libertarians" and "right libertarians" instead of just a bigger group of libertarians.

Screw that!

.

The "Green Party"? Oh my!

Somehow I got CC'ed on some emails involving people I don't know at all. Don't even have a clue who they are. One of the participants copied and pasted my latest CNJ column to the others, which is how I might have gotten mixed up in it.

Anyway... they were discussing The Green Party. One person was mentioning how the Green Party supports "depopulation", while the others were defending the Green Party by saying that, no, they are not advocates of depopulation, but of "sustainability".

I have heard of the Greens for years and assumed they were simply socialists, but had never looked into them. Perhaps they could be allies. So, I found their website.

Nope. Not allies. Not a chance in Hades!

I started looking over their platform and- WOW! I don't know where to begin.

I originally thought I might go through their platform and drag the truth out of it sentence by sentence, but I soon realized that it is a VERY long platform and every sentence contains "problems".

I did get a tiny bit into the first point ("Democracy") and will share what I found in the first paragraph:

"Our nation was born as the first great experiment in modern democracy."

And, like the majority of experiments the premise was disproved. Time to try something different.

"We seek to rescue that heritage from the erosion of citizen participation."

Why? When smart people discover that something doesn't work they don't keep doing it. Only idiots do that.

"Moreover, we seek to dissolve the grip of the ideology, intoned by big-money interests for more than twenty years, that government is intrinsically undesirable and destructive of liberty and that elected officials should rightly 'starve the beast' by slashing all spending on social program, in the name of freedom."

"Big money interests", at least the dishonest ones that are a problem, desire big government. They also despise liberty. "Starving the beast" means forcing government to support itself with donations, not by stealing. If it can't do that it needs to die. It isn't up to elected officials to be responsible by not spending money that isn't theirs to spend. Crooks won't ever be responsible. It is up to you and me to do the right thing and force the theft to end. "Social program" [sic] destroy freedom. It isn't "generous" to give away money that is not yours to give- that is theft. Theft is anti-freedom, and more importantly, it is anti-LIBERTY. Charity is great; "social programs" financed through theft and coercion are evil.

"We challenge that tactic by calling on all Americans to think deeply about the meaning of government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Government can be "of the people", it can even be "by the people", but it can never be "for the people". It is always for the government. The people- individuals- always lose out to the collective that seeks to live at the expense of those who actually produce. That "collective" is a sad feature of humans wherein they feel empowered by the anonymity of a large group to do things they know are wrong if they did them on their own. They may know it is wrong to steal from others, but put them in a group where someone else is actually looking into the eyes of the children as they take away the property they depend on, and it is easy to shirk the blame. But the blame rests on each individual who advocates theft. Government lives for power, and the corrupt individuals who hold that power know that the best way to hold onto the power they possess, and gain more power, is to promise to give voters and supporters "stuff". "Entitlements" are bribes paid by politicians to people who generally won't do the stealing in person, but are more than happy to receive stolen goods as long as they don't witness the theft first-hand.

"In a democracy, individuals come together to form structures of governance that protect and advance the common good."

Structures of governance? What is "governance"? It is control and coercion. It is forcing people to do things they know are not in their best interest, because otherwise they would do them without being forced. Governance, other than self-governance, is mob rule. It is a violation of liberty. When those "structures" and "the common good" hurt individuals it is time to stop. There is NO SUCH THING as "the common good". If it hurts individuals it hurts society. Society is nothing without the individuals that comprise it. You can't violate property rights of the individuals and then claim it helps "the common good" without exposing yourself as a liar.

"We the citizens are the government, and we the citizens can direct it to fulfill its finest goals and purposes."

The word "citizen" is disgusting; implying that you belong to the government that claims the land you live on or were born on. But, moving right along... What are the government's "finest goals and purposes"? The only possible justification for government is to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the people who live under it.

.....

And so on. And that's not even the whole first paragraph. Next to these people, Republocrats seem almost honest and respectable. They are almost as bad as the "Government is Good" goons- maybe the same people are behind both spectacles.

.

You have right to refuse health care

You have right to refuse health care

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

The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", that Orwellian edifice of Medical Marxism more commonly referred to as "ObamaCare", has been declared "legal". What a farce. It has nothing to do with protecting patients. It has nothing to do with making medical services affordable- unless you consider slavery an affordable alternative to paying for services and theft an affordable alternative to paying for products. It is also the opposite of care.

It abysmally "solves" a problem that would never have existed if not for government intervention in health care.

You have an absolute right to provide yourself with whatever health care you want and can obtain for yourself without coercion. You have a human right to use whatever kind of medication or procedures you want, over the objections of the FDA and DEA. However, your right doesn't create an obligation on anyone else to serve you or pay for your care on your behalf. No one has a right to force someone to do something for them beyond leaving them alone.

If you can read the Constitution you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the federal government has no authority to interfere in the practice, or financing, of medicine. If it isn't specifically spelled out, the authority doesn't exist. It doesn't take a Supreme Court to find the truth; only to obscure it. The Supreme Court was never intended to be the final arbiter of whether or not a law was constitutional; that is your job and mine, but the Supreme Court illegally seized that power for themselves in the early years of the 19th century, and no one punished them for doing so. America has been paying the price ever since.

If you assume that the Constitution is the Alpha and the Omega of right and wrong where governing is concerned; that "legal" is the same thing as "right"; that the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether a law is constitutional or not; that it is OK to dictate what people may do with their own property- even to the point of taking it from them against their will; if you allow things you know are wrong to be imposed on yourself or on others, then you should expect things like this to happen. You are a part of the problem.

America will probably survive ObamaCare. The USA may, too. However, if things like this continue to be allowed to be imposed, there will come a time when, unexpectedly and out of the blue, the next tiny straw will break the camel's back. Be prepared.

.

War is Peace. Military is Militia.

I don't have television (only Netflix streaming), but just ran across some previews of a TV show that looks interesting. "Revolution". However, in watching previews on YouTube I notice something. Just as words got twisted in Orwell's "1984" so that "War is Peace", "Revolution" has twisted the word "militia". The bad guy, Neville, is called "militia", but he is instead military.

If you work for The State (or whatever coercive collective passes for The State in your society), using weapons to enforce the edicts and theft of that State, you are military. If you pursue the interests of The State, with force, against the interests of the people, you are military.

The character Charlie is the true face of militia. The armed people, simply protecting themselves and their local society, is what militia is. All the people. Not some "set apart" elite.

Yet, as is the case more and more in Police State USA, the concept has been turned inside out in order to vilify the good guys by conflating them with the bad guys.

Like it or not, YOU are tasked with being militia. You can betray that by becoming military instead, or you can step up and do what's right. Which do you choose?

Added, after watching the pilot episode:

(From here)

I liked it in a “willing suspension of disbelief” way.

Why is it that people always assume it’s going to be “kill or be killed” if you remove The State? I don’t refrain from killing people only because I might be punished by cops or courts. And, even if I were a thug I still think I’d worry more about armed victims.

And, back to the subject of their “militia” [sic]… Anyone who bans guns, or enforces a gun ban for someone else, is NOT militia. Militia helps its members (in other words, EVERYONE) get weapons and learn how to use them.

.

Fundraiser time

(I'm pinning this to the top, so look below for the new stuff for a few days. Thanks.)

I need some money. However, I'm not asking for donations. What I am asking is that you buy things from me if you want them.

Or, if you feel so inclined, and you believe there is value in what I write, you could pay me for that. Whatever you believe my writings are worth to you.

If you are struggling or short of money I don't want any money from you. Only if you have "extra money", whatever that might mean to you, should you ever pay me for my writing. I don't want your kid to do without a single water balloon because of me.

If you don't think my blog is worth reading, or at least not worth paying for, I don't want your money.

I don't want welfare, and in this case I don't even want charity.

All I'm asking is that if you believe there is value- for YOU- in what I write, and you think you should pay me for it even though you can get it for free, then pay me what you think you should. If you can, without causing hardship to yourself. If you can't afford to pay, or you don't believe you should- for any reason at all- then please don't send a cent.

Thanks.

.

Sticking points

There are some pretty interesting groups out there I can't join, even though I otherwise would, because of just a couple of disagreements. It is the difference between a "liberty-supporting conservative" and a libertarian.

I got an invitation to join one such online group a couple of days ago that I was initially going to join, but their website had a couple things I can't agree to. For example: "We support bringing all U.S. Troops home, from overseas bases, and placing them in our homeland, to secure OUR borders."

Bring the "troops" home, by all means. But then let them find real jobs, paid for economically, not politically. And don't use them for political purposes. I secure MY borders just fine (without using people paid with stolen money) and I will help others do the same, but I don't recognize any collective "borders" like the ones the US government insists are real (and is willing to kill over). That one little problem prevented me from clicking "agree".

Well, there's another one. "We don't support Darwinism..." What is "Darwinism"? If they mean the science of evolution by natural selection over geological periods of time, well, it doesn't matter whether you "support" it or not. Just like gravity, it will keep on doing what it does with or without your support or approval. Now, if they mean "Social Darwinism" of the type advocated by genocidal collectivists, I would agree to refusing to support that, but that isn't what it says.

Another issue I have is the repetition of the terms "American"/"Americans". Rights are not dependent upon "citizenship" or where you were born. An Afghan shepherd has the exact same fundamental human rights that an American neurosurgeon has- no more and no less. Whether the local mafia/state recognizes those rights or not is a different issue, as is the issue of whether an occupying force of invaders respects your rights.

So, while I wish the organization all the best and I support most of its goals, and may even promote them in some ways, those sticking points mean I can't honestly join them "officially".

I'm still waiting for a group based upon the Covenant of Unanimous Consent.

.

"Have you ever sat down with a cop...?"

I realize I am pretty harsh in my criticism of cops. Reavers. Liberty Eradication Operatives. Whatever you call them.

One assumption that comes up over and over through the years is that I have never actually known any cops socially, or that I have been in trouble with the "law" a lot. Neither is true.

I have had a few educational experiences that involved cops, but nothing more serious than minor traffic "offenses" (which wouldn't be offenses in a free society). Maybe a few incidents that would be more serious in today's US police state than back when they occurred. But I have never really been "in trouble". That doesn't mean that I overlook abuses just because I didn't happen to be the victim, though. Wrong is wrong, even if it doesn't directly target me.

I have known quite a few cops over the years. In a few different states. I have socialized with them, had deep conversations with them, even driven some drunk ones home. I have talked to some soon-to-be cops and found their brainwashing to be horrifying.

What they do, as a integral part of their "job", on a daily basis, is not a good thing. It is not something that should be done. You can't live off of "tax" money and then "arrest" people for theft without exposing yourself as a hypocrite. You can't enforce "laws" that shouldn't be enforced and then say you are "just following orders" or just doing your job.

Yes, I oppose the very existence of cops. I have some surprising allies in this opposition. As a matter of fact, the older retired/former cops I have known generally hate today's cops more than I do. They seem utterly disgusted at what police have become in a way I could never really relate to. Compared to them, I am a "cop lover".

I don't "need" cops. Neither do you. They don't make us safer. You are wise to never involve a cop in any bad situation; they only make it worse.

So don't assume that someone who dislikes cops does so out of ignorance, or out of bad "legal" experiences, or from a desire to be a thug. It may just be that he sees them and their illegitimacy more clearly than you do.

.

Politicians fear guns? Of course!

Most politicians, even those who fool gun owners into believing they are their friend, fear guns. Or hate them openly. And they do all they can to ban or regulate them into uselessness.

Why does that surprise anyone?

Given the power, I'm quite certain plague-infested rats would ban rat traps and rat poison, and flesh-eating bacteria would ban antibiotics. So it's no wonder anti-liberty vermin who have gained political power would try to ban our best defense against them.

The solution is obvious: stop being a parasite that threatens our life, liberty, and pursuit of property and you'll no longer have any reason to fear guns.

.

Obamney/Ryden 2012! Embrace the fail!

The post's title has upset quite a few Rombots on facebook. Usually after they have posted something anti-Obama that I agreed with. Then they make some absurd comment about how much better Romney is, or at least how much less bad he supposedly is, than Obama ("No comparison to a full blown socialist marxist radical anti-ameriKan usurper..")- which is sad considering that anything they say about Obama applies just as much to Romney, or would if he were "elected" president.

I'd purge my bloated "friend list", but those I'd be most likely to "de-friend" need to be exposed to the truth worse than those whom I'd keep around.

.

Assume you are a "criminal"

If you see a Reaver ("law enforcement officer") or have to be around some government facility or employee, it is wisest to simply assume you are doing something "illegal" or at least something they won't like (and will probably use as justification for further scrutiny or molestation).

This isn't being "paranoid"; it's being smart. It is the reality of the police state in which we find ourselves living today. Don't deny it or fight it. Accept it and survive.

.

Our society able to govern itself

Our society able to govern itself

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 13, 2012. I think I woulda left out the word "Our" in the headline, but...)

Technology has evolved. I can now carry an entire library of books in one hand when I leave the house, and I still have a library full of "paper and binding" books at home. This is a wealth unimaginable to even the kings of previous generations.

Knowledge has grown. For example, the human genome has been read and is being studied to find causes and cures for many horrible conditions. This raises possibilities undreamed of just a generation ago. Not only of extending the typical lifespan, but of improving the quality of more of that lifespan. (Unless ObamaCare kills health care in America.)

Everywhere you look, things show promise of getting better. Well, almost everywhere you look. Why, in the midst of all this exciting advancement, do we still settle for the bronze age notion of externally-imposed government?

Sure, governance is necessary. Self governance. You have to take responsibility for your own actions and accept the consequences, but this primitive notion of having a ruler- either one man or "the majority"- to interfere in the consensual, non-aggressive aspects of your life is positively barbaric. Very few things should be subject to a vote of any sort, and then only when you allow the non-consenting parties to opt out without leaving their home turf.

This problem springs from the silly belief that society needs to be run. As if society were a machine that will stop functioning without someone sitting in the driver's seat. The truth is much happier: Society runs just fine without so much as a steering wheel.

Snowflakes form a six-sided crystal due to the way water molecules arrange themselves as they freeze. It is just a natural example of self-organization; it will always occur unless there is some contaminant introduced into the mix. In the same way, people naturally arrange themselves in a peaceful society where each interaction benefits both. Those who attack or steal get eliminated as a matter of course. Until or unless you allow the contaminant of legitimized coercion to pollute your society. Then you end up with something uncivilized. Something resembling what we live under now.

"Patriots" frequently suggest that if I don't like it, I can move to Somalia- a society which has been destroyed by those who keep trying to impose a state on people who never wanted one. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic and backward.

.