Dissecting a Post -Mortem

I'm not sure how to address this one (which I received in an email) without posting the entire original column. So, I will apologize.

Go to her link, so that maybe she'll get more traffic and won't be too mad.  If I get a complaint I may leave the link, but delete her paragraphs and just address the numbered points.

Once again, Republicans are seeing the results and fantasizing causes.

Post-Mortem

Laura Hollis

Nov 08, 2012Click if you like this column!

I am already reading so many pundits and other talking heads analyzing the disaster that was this year's elections. I am adding my own ten cents. Here goes:

1. We are outnumbered

We accurately foresaw the enthusiasm, the passion, the commitment, the determination, and the turnout. Married women, men, independents, Catholics, evangelicals; they all went for Romney in percentages as high or higher than the groups which voted for McCain in 2008. It wasn't enough. What we saw in the election on Tuesday was a tipping point: we are now at a place where there are legitimately fewer Americans who desire a free republic with a free people than there are those who think the government should give them stuff. There are fewer of us who believe in the value of free exchange and free enterprise. There are fewer of us who do not wish to demonize successful people in order to justify taking from them. We are outnumbered. For the moment. It's just that simple.

To believe Romney represented "a free republic with a free people" or "free exchange and free enterprise" is completely delusional.  You lost because you offered a candidate who was indistinguishable from his opponent- at least to anyone who wasn't just blindly "anti-Obama".  So yes, the pro-Romney people were outnumbered- by the pro-Obama people, the anti-Republican people, the Ron Paul people (who you stabbed in the back), the REAL pro-liberty people who see through the rigged game, the apathetic people, the disenfranchised, and the people who have given up.  Until you own it, you'll find yourself there again and again.

2. It wasn't the candidate(s)

Some are already saying, "Romney was the wrong guy"; "He should have picked Marco Rubio to get Florida/Rob Portman to get Ohio/Chris Christie to get [someplace else]." With all due respect, these assessments are incorrect. Romney ran a strategic and well-organized campaign. Yes, he could have hit harder on Benghazi. But for those who would have loved that, there are those who would have found it distasteful. No matter what tactic you could point to that Romney could have done better, it would have been spun in a way that was detrimental to his chances. Romney would have been an excellent president, and Ryan was an inspired choice. No matter who we ran this year, they would have lost. See #1, above.

Yes, it WAS the candidate(s)- at least to a large degree.  Pretending it wasn't is delusional.  Who cares if he "ran a strategic and well-organized campaign"?  You can try to sell sewage as drinking water with a "strategic and well-organized campaign" but if people see what you are really selling, don't whine that they didn't buy it.  "No matter who we ran this year, they would have lost."  That's just not accepting responsibility for doing something stupid.  And, yes, Romney was a stupid choice.  You alienated your voters base by nominating him against the wishes of the grass roots voters.  I personally know of at least three staunch Republicans- people I would have bet money on to vote for anyone as long as he ran as a Republican- who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Romney this time.  Two voted for Gary Johnson and one refused to vote for a presidential candidate at all because they couldn't vote for a liberal socialist even though he had an "R" after his name.  

3. It's the culture, stupid.

We have been trying to fight this battle every four years at the voting booth. It is long past time we admit that that is not where the battle really is. We abdicated control of the culture: starting back in the 1960s. And now our largest primary social institutions: education, the media, Hollywood (entertainment) have become really nothing more than an assembly line for cranking out reliable little Leftists. Furthermore, we have allowed the government to undermine the institutions that instill good character: marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches. So, here we are, at least two full generations later; we are reaping what we have sown. It took nearly fifty years to get here; it will take another fifty years to get back. But it starts with the determination to reclaim education, the media, and the entertainment business. If we fail to do that, we can kiss every election goodbye from here on out. And much more.

Yes, it probably is the culture- and "conservatives" are half of the problem.  No one "controls" the culture, so you couldn't have abdicated that control.  The belief that "you" did once control it is a part of where you went off-track.  Those "primary social institutions" you speak of: "education, the media, Hollywood (entertainment), and marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches" should be safe from anyone's political control- yours included.  Once you pretend it is OK for government to control, say, marriage, then your opposition will agree with you and try to control it in the way they would prefer.  Government has no business handing out "marriage licenses" or being involved in any marriage.  Gay marriage ceases to be an issue when you refuse to allow government to sanction or ration marriages.  The same goes for schools/"education".  Education is MUCH too important to allow government to control or regulate it in any way.  And if you allow religious ideas to be enshrined in "law" (anti-sex laws, prohibition, etc.), you open the door for religious ideas that you hate or fear ("Sharia Law") to be used in the same way- and once soiled by association with The State, your church is never again clean.  You can't "reclaim" things that never belonged to you.  Remove the government monopoly and then build your own "conservative" alternatives and let the market decide.  If you can't bring yourself to do this it may mean you know your "product" is not worthy.

4. America has become a nation of adolescents

The real loser in this election was adulthood: Maturity. Responsibility. The understanding that liberty must be accompanied by self-restraint. Obama is a spoiled child, and the behavior and language of his followers and their advertisements throughout the campaign makes it clear how many of them are, as well. Romney is a grown-up. Romney should have won. Those of us who expected him to win assumed that voters would act like grownups. Because if we were a nation of grownups, he would have won.But what did win? Sex. Drugs. Bad language. Bad manners. Vulgarity. Lies. Cheating. Name-calling. Finger-pointing. Blaming. And irresponsible spending.This does not bode well. People grow up one of two ways: either they choose to, or circumstances force them to. The warnings are all there, whether it is the looming economic disaster, or the inability of the government to respond to crises like Hurricane Sandy, or the growing strength and brazenness of our enemies. American voters stick their fingers in their ears and say, "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you."It is unpleasant to think about the circumstances it will take to force Americans to grow up. It is even more unpleasant to think about Obama at the helm when those circumstances arrive.

So, blaming everyone else is "mature" and "responsible"?  "Romney is a grown-up."?  Hardly.  But this isn't about Romney, no matter how badly you want that to be true.  It wasn't "Sex. Drugs. Bad language. Bad manners. Vulgarity. Lies. Cheating. Name-calling. Finger-pointing. Blaming. And irresponsible spending." that won.  No, it was government regulation of sex, prohibition, censorship, enforced "morality", and such as that which lost.  And, Romney is just a big a proponent of "irresponsible spending" as Obama.  RomneyCare?  A military that is bigger/more expensive than the militaries of the rest of the world combined?  How are those socialist programs "responsible"?  When Americans do grow up, if they ever do, it will be just as horrible for the Fathers of the Republican side as it will be for the Mommies of the Democrat side.  Overbearing and overprotective parents don't fare well if they try to hold down grown children.

5. Yes, there is apparently a Vagina Vote

It's the subject matter of another column in its entirety to point out, one by one, all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Democrats this year. Suffice it to say that the only "war on women" was the one waged by the Obama campaign, which sexualized and objectified women, featuring them dressed up like vulvas at the Democrat National Convention, appealing to their "lady parts", comparing voting to losing your virginity with Obama, trumpeting the thrills of destroying our children in the womb (and using our daughters in commercials to do so), and making Catholics pay for their birth control. For a significant number of women, this was appealing. It might call into question the wisdom of the Nineteenth Amendment, but for the fact that large numbers of women (largely married) used their "lady smarts" instead. Either way, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are rolling over in their graves.

Yes, this was stupid.  But the stupidity comes about because Republicans are so divisive on "female" issues.  When you shut out people over these issues, where do you expect them to go?  To your opponent.  When you allow The State to become involved in health care, why does it surprise you when it starts making demands you don't like?  When you impose your own type of "Christian Sharia Law" on people whose beliefs differ from yours, why does it surprise you that they go off the deep end in opposition to everything you "stand for"?  True, Democrats use gender (and race) just as much as Republicans, but in a way that seems to be welcoming as opposed to the divisive tactics of the Republicans.  Sure, Democrats are just using them for their votes, but as long as you make people feel welcomed...

6. It's not about giving up on "social issues"

No Republican candidate should participate in a debate or go out on the stump without thorough debate prep and a complete set of talking points that they stick to. This should start with a good grounding in biology and a reluctance to purport to know the will of God. (Thank you, Todd and Richard.)
That said, we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible.We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable.We defend family: mothers, fathers, marriage, children; because history makes it quite clear that societies without intact families quickly descend into anarchy and barbarism, and we have plenty of proof of that in our inner cities where marriage is infrequent and unwed motherhood approaches 80 percent. When Roe v. Wadewas decided in 1973, many thought that the abortion cause was lost. Forty years later, ultrasound technology has demonstrated the inevitable connection between science and morality. More Americans than ever define themselves as "pro-life". What is tragic is that tens of millions of children have lost their lives while Americans figure out what should have been obvious before.There is no "giving up" on social issues. There is only the realization that we have to fight the battle on other fronts. The truth will out in the end.

"That said, we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible."  You should try having some principles, then.  They are even more unpopular than "values".  And with principles you don't get caught up in the fact that you are outnumbered or lost an election.  "...we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible."  So this is why you still support socialism, anti-liberty "laws", and government regulation of the economy?  It doesn't matter that your opponents do the same, only in different ways.  The most outrageous claim, though, is this: "We defend family: “ mothers, fathers, marriage, children“ because history makes it quite clear that societies without intact families quickly descend into anarchy and barbarism, and we have plenty of proof of that in our inner cities where marriage is infrequent and unwed motherhood approaches 80 percent."  Your beloved "War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs" is a HUMONGOUS factor in this destruction of families.  Every Drug War supporter values the authority to tell others what they may and may not introduce into their bloodstream above intact families.  Hypocrisy in the extreme!  "...many thought that the abortion cause was lost. Forty years later, ultrasound technology has demonstrated the inevitable connection between science and morality"- only to those who are already "true believers".  Don't give up on social issues, but realize that this isn't a legitimate political zone.  Trying to turn it into one is part of what alienates voters.

7. Obama does not have a mandate. And he does not need one.

I have to laugh- bitterly- when I read conservative pundits trying to assure us that Obama "has to know" that he does not have a mandate, and so he will have to govern from the middle. I don't know what they're smoking. Obama does not care that he does not have a mandate. He does not view himself as being elected (much less re-elected) to represent individuals. He views himself as having been re-elected to complete the "fundamental transformation" of America, the basic structure of which he despises. Expect much more of the same; largely the complete disregard of the will of half the American public, his willingness to rule by executive order, and the utter inability of another divided Congress to rein him in. Stanley Kurtz has it all laid out here.

"...America, the basic structure of which he despises"  And Romney differs, how?  Romney wouldn't know what the Constitution authorizes him to do if I sat down and explained it to him.  He wouldn't get rid of the Department of Education, Medicare, Social Security, the FBI, the military and its foreign bases, etc. etc. etc.  Nope.  These things are completely anti-American, yet he would embrace them and use them anyway.  This shows he despises the basic structure of America (the Constitution and Declaration of Independence- un"interpreted") just as badly as Obama does.  He just pretends better.  "Expect much more of the same “ largely the complete disregard of the will of half the American public, his willingness to rule by executive order..."  You can't seriously be claiming Romney would have not done this, are you?  

8. The Corrupt Media is the enemy

Too strong? I don't think so. I have been watching the media try to throw elections since at least the early 1990s. In 2008 and again this year, we saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this President, while demonizing a good, honorable and decent man with lies and smears. This is on top of the daily barrage of insults that conservatives (and by that I mean the electorate, not the politicians) must endure at the hands of this arrogant bunch of elitist snobs. Bias is one thing. What we observed with Benghazi was professional malpractice and fraud. They need to go.Republicans, Libertarians and other conservatives need to be prepared to play hardball with the Pravda press from here on out. And while we are at it, to defend those journalists of whatever political stripe (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Atkisson, Eli Lake) who actually do their jobs. As well as Fox News and talk radio. Because you can fully expect a re-elected Obama to try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in term 2.

"In 2008 and again this year, we saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this President, while demonizing a good, honorable and decent man with lies and smears."  So, it's bad when the media does it to Romney for Obama's benefit, but it's OK that the GOP did it to Ron Paul for the benefit of Romney?   "Republicans, Libertarians and other conservatives..."?  Don't include libertarians in that disgusting gang!  Republicans have shown over and over again that they try really hard to use libertarians when it suits them, but throw us under the bus just as soon as we refuse to drink their poison.

9. Small business and entrepreneurs will be hurt the worst

For all the blather about "Wall Street versus Main Street", Obama's statist agenda will unquestionably benefit the biggest corporations which- as with the public sector unions- are in the best position to make campaign donations, hire lobbyists, and get special exemptions carved out from Obama's health care laws, his environmental regulations, his labor laws. It will be the small business, the entrepreneur, and the first-time innovators who will be crushed by their inability to compete on a level playing field.

Yep.  Exactly like what always happens under either of the "mainstream" parties.

10. America is more polarized than ever; and this time it's personal

I've been following politics for a long time, and it feels different this time. Not just for me. I've received messages from other conservatives who are saying the same thing: there is little to no tolerance left out there for those who are bringing this country to its knees, even when they have been our friends. It isn't just about "my guy" versus "your guy". It is my view of America versus your view of America;  a crippled, hemorrhaging, debt-laden, weakened and dependent America that I want no part of and resent being foisted on me. I no longer have any patience for stupidity, blindness, or vulgarity, so with each dumb 'tweet' or FB post by one of my happily lefty comrades, another one bites the dust, for me. Delete.What does this portend for a divided Congress? I expect that Republicans will be demoralized and chastened for a short time. But I see them in a bad position. Americans in general want Congress to work together. But many do not want Obama's policies, and so Republicans who support them will be toast. Good luck, guys.

"...there is little to no tolerance left out there for those who are bringing this country to its knees, even when they have been our friends"  So, it's "an eye for an eye"?  I don't delete anyone.  Those who I feel the most pity for need to be exposed to the truth.  They can then delete me from their "friend list" if they want, but that is their choice.  I don't give up on them.  "...America that I want no part of and resent being foisted on me"  They feel the same way.  This is why no one's "view of America" should be imposed on anyone else.  Live and let live- and shoot those who refuse to "let live".  I never want Congress to "work together".  I want them to all go home.  Short of that I want gridlock.  There is nothing, anywhere that "needs" a new "law".  The only possible useful thing Congress could ever do in the future is abolish "laws" by the thousands without passing a single new one.  They won't have the guts or the character to do that, so I don't want them doing anything at all.  Never.

11. It's possible that America just has to hit rock bottom

I truly believe that most Americans who voted for Obama have no idea what they are in for. Most simply believe him when he says that all he really wants is for the rich to pay "a little bit more". So reasonable! Who could argue with that except a greedy racist?America is on a horrific bender. Has been for some time now. The warning signs of our fiscal profligacy and culture of lack of personal responsibility are everywhere; too many to mention. We need only look at other countries which have gone the route we are walking now to see what is in store.For the past four years, but certainly within the past campaign season, we have tried to warn Americans. Too many refuse to listen, even when all of the events that have transpired during Obama's presidency; unemployment, economic stagnation, skyrocketing prices, the depression of the dollar, the collapse of foreign policy, Benghazi, hopelessly inept responses to natural disasters; can be tied directly to Obama's statist philosophies, and his decisions.What that means, I fear, is that they will not see what is coming until the whole thing collapses. That is what makes me so sad today. I see the country I love headed toward its own "rock bottom", and I cannot seem to reach those who are taking it there.

"I truly believe that most Americans who voted for Obama have no idea what they are in for..."  And neither did those who voted for his "white clone", Romney.  The bad things that happened during Obama's presidency would have happened under McCain.  And would have continued under Romney.  The Federal Reserve has been destroying the dollar since 1913- recent presidents have nothing to do with it, and can't fix it without eliminating "The Fed".  "...the collapse of foreign policy"?  Invading, murdering, and occupying is a "foreign policy"?  Seems like another few nails in the coffin of America to me.  Why do you falsely and ridiculously believe Obama's statist philosophies are any worse than Romney's- or Bush's, Clinton's, Bush the First's, Reagan's, Carter's, etc?  It's all the same game, and government keeps winning and liberty keeps losing.  This condition will not continue.


.

It's not just a tyranny; it's an adventure!

I know some people who are really upset- even scared- by the re-election of Obama.

If this is you, focus that emotion into doing something constructive.

Learn the skills that will serve you best, in your area, if you can't count on any infrastructure or "civilization" being there.  Realize that this probably won't happen, but the skills will be fun to learn and will be like insurance.

If your area is unsurvivable in the above scenario, get out now.

Get things you think you might need if things aren't quite that bad.  Real money, for example.  Food, water, weaponry.  Extra medications that you can't live without.  Knowledge of ways to replace the modern things that might not be readily available.

Be nice to your neighbors and get to know them.  You'll find out who will help defend you in case of emergency, and who might just be the emergency.

Don't get overly dramatic about the election results.  It doesn't really matter who the War Criminal In Chief is today or will be tomorrow.  It doesn't matter what new "laws" are passed (and "upheld") unless you intend to obey them.  I don't.  Romney would have been no better.

I don't "need" a president or any representative to represent me.  Or rule me.  And neither do you.  Accept it and stop looking to others to run- or fix- your life.  That is your job.  Start doing it.

Come on, it'll be fun!


.

Elections and The State

Government.

It's not the drunk at the throttle that's the problem.  He controls less than you believe.

It's that the locomotive was designed to self-destruct- and it will often be an explosive failure when it happens.  

It's that its passengers are not all there of their own free will, but are hostages, forced to pay for the ticket, forbidden to disembark, and told to worship the monstrosity they are riding on.  At gunpoint.

It's that the track it runs on is made of the bones of its victims; past, present, and future.  

It's that those tracks run right off the edge of a cliff.

So, stop fighting about which drunk idiot is at the throttle.  Sideline that failed locomotive and get out and walk on your own two feet.  Stop holding others hostage at gunpoint and forcing the more timid among them to be a passenger on your suicide train.  Then, if you choose to follow those tracks to your own doom at least you won't take anyone with you.

As for me, I am not on your train, but its noise and stench have polluted the neighborhood for far too long.  Your train is not welcome here.

.

Self defense = Awareness

Self defense. It's a touchy subject.  And so many times it isn't used when it should be.  People hesitate just a fraction of a second too long.

Why?

I think it is because they instinctively know "you just don't hurt people"- unless they are a damaged aggressor who doesn't have that internal regulator.

So, normal people have a fear of striking too soon or striking and hurting the wrong person. They worry about getting in trouble for hurting someone.  They don't want to attract attention.  They wonder if they are misinterpreting the situation- or instinctively assume the person approaching won't really hurt them.  Even in obviously dangerous situations, such as the "9-11" planes, this hesitation and self-imposed reluctance to hurt a bad guy will prevent action from being taken until it is too late.

Sadly, this is because normal people are nice.  The bad guys out there are not and have none of that concern.  To them you are less than human.  You are prey.

I don't know of any healthy way to turn a nice, normal person into a person who can switch that off and strike an aggressor fast and hard without doing some other damage to the psyche, too.  Some self defense training probably helps, but I think even this does some damage in most cases.  It isn't healthy to see the whole world as a threat, because that isn't the reality of the situation.

And, split-second judgments are always iffy.  In most cases, people are just not aware of a threat in the area until it is too late.  They don't notice their surroundings at all.

The best line to walk between being paranoid and being prey seems to me to be awareness.  Pay attention to your surroundings at all times.  Observe.  Not just to see threats, but to see beauty.  Observing the world has a big payoff in every aspect of your life.  It's the difference between being conscious and aware or being asleep and shuffling through life seeing nothing but the ground in front of your feet.

And then, when a real threat appears, noticing it early may just give you time to decide when the right time to strike has come.  The predator has already noticed you- even the playing field.


.

Liberty Lines 11-8-2012

(Published in the Farwell TX/ Texico NM State Line Tribune)

Small towns lead a strange double life.  I suppose big cities do too, although I don't know for sure.

People in small towns generally treat you with kindness and decency in person.  They will go out of their way to help someone- even a stranger.  Or a strange local.  They interact on a voluntary basis.

They don't often steal or attack one another- especially when there are mutual acquaintances and overlapping social circles, as there almost always are.

But, then, they turn around and don't hesitate to use political force against these same neighbors, by asking government to impose, and then enforce, counterfeit "laws" on them.

They ask government to violate their neighbors' private property rights for "the common good".  They ask government to violate their neighbors' individual sovereignty by pretending to have the authority to tell others what they may or may not introduce into their own body.  Instead of taking action when there is a real individual victim, they punish "what if"s and "maybe"s- something known in science fiction as "pre-crime".  Something known in real life as "mala prohibita"- not wrong in and of itself, but only wrong because someone decided to make up a "law".

Most would never consider doing these things to their peaceable neighbors in person.  They do these things by proxy- hiding behind government's skirts.

I would rather see things done more honestly and openly, if they are to be done at all.  It still wouldn't make it right, but at least you would know exactly who believes they own you when they act upon that belief.

If you think it is your business to control what your neighbor does, why not just walk uninvited into his house and poke around?  If you think your neighbor should be forced to pay for some program you support, why not rob him at gunpoint?

I'll tell you why not.  Because we know those things are not right.  They are still not right when you have others do them on your behalf.

As we enter the holiday season, let's cast off the desire to meddle and control, and replace it with a desire to be the best we can be.  Let's accomplish things voluntarily, not politically.

Obama "wins"

I didn't watch any election coverage yesterday.  In fact, I hadn't really thought about it until I got online this morning and saw half of the statist socialists cheering the victory of their candidate and the other half of the statist socialists wringing their hands over the defeat of their candidate.

Yawn.

As if it matters.  LOL

I'll keep doing what I do.

It wouldn't have made one bit of difference had Romney won.  He was Obama's clone.  Just a Big Government socialistic fascist stamped out of the same die as Obama. And the Bushes.  And Clinton.  Etc.  The claims about Obama's secret religion or birthplace were distractions from the things that really mattered- and on those things Romney wasn't just shooting blanks; he was pointing his finger and saying "click".  And only those who were blinded by their hatred of Obama even noticed Romney.

Maybe it's a good thing the presidency stays with Obamney 1.0/Obama- or should that be Bush 2.0?  Whatever.

Maybe a few more people will now grow up enough to reject The State.  Maybe more will stop saying such ridiculous things as "my president", or "our government".

I do suspect many "conservatives" will become more fervent in their slavish devotion to Nazi rituals, though, thinking this to be a rejection of Obama's ideology.  LOL.

Maybe lots more guns will be bought in preparation for defending ourselves from government employees.  Maybe Obama will even fall into the trap of outlawing guns and trying to implement confiscation so that "we" don't have to keep wondering "is it time?"

Maybe the dollar will finally collapse so that we can go back to using real money.  So what if "they" make it illegal?  It will happen anyway.

Maybe more people will embrace their outlawry and stop obeying counterfeit "laws".

Maybe Obama and his minions- "conservative" AND "liberal"- will tighten their grip enough that everyone who matters will slip from their straining fingers.

Maybe this will bring Americans to the point of remembering the Declaration of Independence in large enough numbers that they finally remember that bit about "abolishing" government that violates liberty, and finally take responsibility for governing themselves- each as an individual.

Maybe governmental suicide is imminent- advanced by the illusion of victory.

But if not, I will keep doing what I do.

I am not worried by Obama.  Romney wouldn't have been noticeably different, much less "better".

The government has always been your enemy, and always will be.  You may not have noticed as long as you believe "your guy" is in charge.  That doesn't alter the truth.  Accept it and get ready for interesting times.  They were coming no matter which delusional statist thug "won" the election.  You have warning; you have no excuse.

Remember, this is only one battle in a long string of battles- the war is not over.


.

Aftermath of the "Election"- Listen up, Republicans

Hey Republicans- you could have easily won the election if you hadn't nominated Obama's clone as your candidate. Good job! I'm sure you'll take this lesson and put it to good use next time. Not. LOL

You had your chance with Ron Paul... but you cheated and broke your own convention rules so that you could ensure this result- just like I warned you at the time.

Well, at least your folly will probably shake a few more people out of their "government is legitimate" delusion so that they can join me on the side of real Liberty.


.

How do you ration your fear?

Drunk driving. Terrorists.  Natural disasters.  Diseases.  "Breakdown of social order".  Lack of government control.  All these things are supposed to cause fear.  As they say: "meh".

I seem to have a different outlook than most people, perhaps even different from most libertarians.

I am not afraid of things that seem to really scare some people.

I oppose enforcement of anti-drunk-driving "laws".  In fact, I think drunk driving "laws" should all be eliminated completely.

Yes, I believe if you do drive drunk (or sober, for that matter) and cause harm to a person or someone else's property, then you are in debt.  Some debts are impossible to pay.

I have been told that driving drunk is the same as pointing a loaded gun at an innocent person's head.  But I don't quite believe that.  There seems to be a real difference there, even if I can't put my finger on it.  Perhaps it is the intent behind the act.

"Might hurt someone" just doesn't cut it with me.

"Terrorists"?  I've never seen one- at least one who didn't work for government.  Do I fear them? Do I believe I need to give someone else my liberty so that they can protect me from terrorists?  Nope.  Sorry.

Natural disasters?  They will happen.  Take precautions.  It's the best way to guard against harm when they do happen.  Will that guarantee your safety?  Don't be silly.  But it's better (and smarter) than sitting around refusing to do anything and expecting someone else to come bail you out.

Diseases.  Probably about the same thing as "natural disasters".  Avoid doing things that increase your chances of catching a communicable disease, but don't expect me to sit around wearing a dust mask spraying disinfectant on everything I touch.  I fear medical treatment more than I fear disease.  I fear the expenses, too.

"Breakdown of social order"?  Might happen.  If it does I am as ready as I can be under the circumstances.  I'm adaptable.

Lack of governmental control?  Fear it?  I crave it.  I'd rather see chaos or anarchy than a rigid, ordered "society".  Either things will work out OK, or they won't.  If they don't... well, that's life.  Some will say I just don't understand how bad it could be.  Probably not.  But I have been in plenty of situations beyond the realistic reach of government, and things worked out just fine.  Bring it on!

Perhaps my problem is a lack of fear.

The State needs "us" to be afraid. All the time.  Of everything except its employees (well, other than when it wants us to be afraid of defying or killing them).  I can't live that way.  I don't have that much fear- not enough to go around.  I have to ration my fear carefully.  Those things just don't get any.


.

State has no authority in religion

State has no authority in religion

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 5, 2012)

Recently I saw some people around here get very upset over what they saw as an attack on their Freedom of Religion at government-sponsored sporting events.

I saw it somewhat differently.

Religious freedom is a condition necessary for liberty. As long as you practice your religion, or absence thereof, without attacking any innocent person, without coercion, and without violating the property of others, no one should be able to use government force to interfere. Not exactly freedom from religion, but from religious coercion. Simply being exposed to someone else's religion can't harm you.

No part of the government has the authority- and certainly not the right- to meddle in your non-coercive religious practices.

A harder thing for many religious people to accept, but just as critical, is the necessity of not permitting government to incorporate anyone's particular religious ideas into its official policies or promote them at its events. This is a de facto endorsement that can only muddy the waters.

No government money should ever go toward religious displays of any kind, nor should any government money be used to oppose any privately-funded religious display. If you are accepting "tax" money, or using government facilities, you must avoid promoting religion at your event. If you don't like that then you should make certain to remove yourself from the position of using government. However, even at government events, any individuals who are not there in any "official" capacity nor any position of leadership can still practice religion.

The incorporation of religion into "law"- such as Sharia Law or prohibition or sex laws- is the first step down a dangerous slope. This gives religion State power and gives the State religious authority. Few people worry about this issue, or even notice, as long as the religion they follow is the one being promoted or incorporated, but as soon as they get a whiff of someone else's religion having the same influence on government, the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth begin.

By all means weigh any government actions according to your faith, but be careful to not let your faith be soiled by association with government, neither controlling it or being controlled by it, and don't let it be imposed on others by "law", nor force anyone else to pay for it through the use of their "tax" money.

Any government which is able to promote your religion today will be able to suppress your religion tomorrow. Freedom of religion is a double-edged sword. Be careful how you swing it, because that backstroke can cut you deeply.


.

Buy a gun today!

This vote would send a message.  If I had the money, I'd do this.  Maybe you can.

.

Slave Affirmation Day

Generally called "election day" or some-such nonsense.

I think voting is harmful to liberty.  I understand why some people believe it is necessary to vote in self-defense.

Do what you think is best.

But I will guarantee you that "best" does NOT include v*ting for ANY Republican or Democrat.  That path leads straight to Hell (probably not a spiritual one, but quite definitely a physical, Earthly one).

Choose wisely.  And, as a friend constantly points out, Abstain from beans.


.

Remember The Sixth of November, too

Remember, remember, the sixth of November,
The quadrennial election plot?

I know of no reason this treacherous season
should NOT be forgot.
Obamney: 'twas his intent
to rule your life wherever you went.

Votes are cast and votes are tallied, your liberty to kill.
By reason alone, deny him the throne.
Reject not the righteous Red Pill.

Withdraw consent, Abstain from beans.
Withdraw consent, stop voting for fiends.

Molon Labe!

(Or, in picture form:)

.

"Doc's Plan"

This is an idea that I have seen promoted.  I post it here- edited only for language:

Here's the answer to the health care, welfare, social security problem in America.  

The President announces that on a given date, every single person of the over 315,000,000 citizens in the USA will be given $3,000,000. You, me, your child[ren], and even The Donald will get this money. Every man, woman and child will get 3 million bucks to do with what they please. It will be tax free.  

One month from that date ALL welfare, both federal and state will be forever ended. That means no more Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, assisted housing, health care, unemployment compensation; public schools, everything will be ended forever. No more Social Security taxes (or the like) will be taken from our paychecks and those various government offices will cease to exist.  

If you piss away your 3 million bucks on rims or other silliness, you will not get any charity from the government ever again and you'll be out of luck.  

This will end homelessness and poverty in America.  

We know that there are some people who will spend it all as soon as they get it. Some common sense financial counseling will be offered.
People who are visiting on visas or not will get none of it.

OK, yes, I know this would cause immediate inflation- possibly hyperinflation.  It would also cause all the bureaucrats who work in all those obsolete government agencies be to unemployed- the money might make them ignore that for a while, though.

It wouldn't make everyone's life skittles and cream, but would short-sightedness overpower the imminent end of all welfare?  What do you think?

Feel free to spread this idea anywhere you think it might get attention.


.

Some weeks are better skipped

This has been quite a week.

Beginning Monday about noon, it has been taken up by the emergency room, and trips to the doctor and surgeon in the Big City an hour and a half away.  And there will be more trips next week and a surgery next Friday- when I have to be there by 5AM.  And then there will be more trips to The Big City the next week.  I wish gas prices were a lot lower.

The medical problem isn't mine (it's my daughter's mom's) but since she doesn't drive, and since I should be concerned ...

So far I have managed to keep writing and posting in between being gone large chunks of the week, but no guarantees for the next week.  Fortunately, Blogger lets me schedule posts ahead of time so no one notices when I'm gone.  I still have some written and scheduled for the next few days.

Plus, my sister, whom I haven't seen in 12 or 13 years, is supposed to be moving here from Los Angeles, with her girlfriend.  The last we knew she planned on being here yesterday.  But, after supposedly picking up the rental truck (which my parents sent her the money to rent) Monday, and running into delay after delay, no one has heard from her since Wednesday evening.  She has never been very good about answering calls or texts in a timely manner, but this is ridiculous.  Is she avoiding everyone now?  Did she get cold feet?  Did her girlfriend balk about leaving California?  Mechanical trouble?  Did they get hijacked?  The truck was supposed to be turned in by opening time this morning.  Did she even get the truck?  I know my parents are worried.  So am I.  But I'm also suspicious.

UPDATE: The sister has been found.  They are only one state away- they say they had packed the phones and just dug them out.  Should be here before morning.

UPDATE #2:  My sister and her girlfriend are finally here.  Safe, sound, and exhausted.  I am also exhausted after helping unload the truck.  But I'm very happy they are here now.


.

Known by your enemies

How do you feel about people who rape women and then murder them?  If you are like me you probably don't care much for them, and celebrate when one is killed by his intended victim or a rescuer.  Right?

But why do you assume the murderous rapists are bad guys?

Do you think you should become a homicidal rapist for a year so that you can see things from their perspective?  Would this change your mind... and should you change your mind?  Does anyone actually think this way?

Well, apparently some people "think" this way.  On my post about the disgusting religion of "Officer Safety" one brillyunt thinkur had this to say:

"You are obviously clueless about anything but your poor insecure feelings that some Officer must have hurt. I consider you below contempt. Why not go and be an Officer and get back with me after a year of experience. Sometimes one needs to be educated to know how little he knows."

Boo frickin' hoo.

How many times has this been demanded of me?  I have lost count.  Seriously.

I have to have been abused by a cop before I can be opposed to abuse by cop?  A close friend or relative must first be murdered by a cop before I can know that this is wrong?  I have to then become an aggressive authority-crazed Taser-jockey before I can have an opinion about their disgusting acts and the harm they cause?  I have to become one of them to understand how "wonderful, kind, honest, hardworking, necessary, and misunderstood" they are?  I have to have experience in imposing counterfeit "laws" on people for the "official" duly-elected or appointed mafia before I can know it is wrong to punish or kidnap people for doing things that do not violate any other individual in any way?  No, I don't.

I can be just as offended by other people being terrorized and murdered.  It is called "empathy".  And being ethical.  It doesn't have to be personal.  I can't imagine being one of those who only recognize evil when it is attacking them.  What is wrong with people like that?

I know... the commenter is either a reaver or a cop-sucker, and his opinion on cops means just as much as the opinions of the Manson cult concerning their guru.

Still, it is revolting to suggest that I would ever lower myself to become a cop.  A sheriff, maybe, but a type this commenter would soak his pants over.

Homicidal rapists are the bad guys strictly because they violate the Zero Aggression Principle.  Cops are the bad guys for the exact same reason.  And more.  Not only do cops violate the ZAP, they also steal as an integral part of their "job"- they would lose their "job" if they didn't commit these evil acts.  Then they demand you thank them for violating you.  Scum!  I can't become a cop because I have pledged to myself and to my neighbors to not do these things, and to never help LEOs do those things, either.

If this draws fire from some particularly twisted statists, so be it.  It is an honor to have certain kinds of people as my enemy.


.

The "cost" of a hurricane

So, Hurricane Sandy may cost $50 billion.  OK.  But I wonder how much the typical "nice" day costs?  How much does a sunny day cost in damage done by the sun?  How much does a gentle rain cost?

It's like the cold spell (or heat wave) that is said to have claimed X number of lives.  How many people does a pleasant day kill?  How many people die doing things on a nice day who would have survived had the weather been nasty enough to keep them inside?

When calculating these things- if that is even a valid goal- you should subtract out the cost in money and lives that would have been "spent" anyway.  I have my doubts that this is done, since the larger the number, the more dramatic the news and the more emotions will be inflamed.

Everything has a cost.  Be prepared so that you aren't caught off-guard.  Then, enjoy the wind and rain.  Don't fear the uncertainty.


.

Denial

Frustration.  But you can't get through to some people no matter what.  Even if they are staring down the barrel of a gun.  Or a storm.

With Hurricane Sandy aiming directly at my friends in Pennsylvania I took it upon myself to mention to some of them that I hoped they were taking precautions.

Universally I met with the standard reaction, if they reacted at all:

"Oh, nothing ever happens around here.  I'm not going to be paranoid.  The electric company will keep the lights on, or fix it quick if anything happens.  I have a couple of bottles of water, and some food.  I can go over to ___'s house, or where I work, if I need food or water.  It's just down the block.  I don't need anything.  My cell phone works and it's charged.  Etc."

Sigh.  Denial.  "It can't happen to me!"

Why can't people realize that sometimes you can't just walk a block or two to somewhere you believe will have what you need, and be able to get it when you arrive?  Why do people not realize that cell phones need their towers to be standing and be powered in order to work- even if charged?  That sometimes things are bigger than a couple of days can fix?

How did people become convinced that it is "paranoia" to be able to take care of yourself?  How did people become convinced it is somehow morally superior to refuse to be prepared to survive without relying on other people?

How can people not see the fun in being ready for unexpected events- or even those with plenty of warning?

Does no one think ahead and consider it wise to be prepared anymore?  I guess this means that, once again, I am "No One".

**
UPDATE: read the comment I just posted below.


.

Restitution could provide justice

Restitution could provide justice

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 28, 2012.)

Recent and ongoing local events illustrate the folly of imprisonment. The situation is not unique. The same type of events repeat, in limited variation, all across America on a continuous basis.

The Stanford Prison Experiment, and subsequent studies which keep confirming it, should demonstrate that you can't give one group of people dominion over another group of people without both groups losing their humanity. It's not healthy for anyone.

Imprisonment also provides a taxpayer-subsidized "Criminal University" where skills, experience, and lessons are passed from one bad guy to many more people- quite a few of whom are "enrolled", not for attacking or stealing, but for violating arbitrary edicts against self-determination or private property rights. You can't teach people to be good by enforcing bad rules.

The primary goal shouldn't be punishment; but protecting the innocent and private property. If punishment actually helped achieve that goal then a better argument for it could be made, but it doesn't. Only restitution provides some justice to the victim. It costs a violator nothing extra to sit in a cage while the victim is "taxed"- stolen from yet again- to keep prisoners. Only the imprisonment industry benefits, although they have a great many people fooled.

Sure, most people will say that there are just some prisoners who should never walk free again. If someone needs to be caged, they need to be dead, but no government is honest enough to be trusted with that power. Remove the "laws" (the illegitimate rules against self defense and against the most effective defensive tools) that protect aggressors and thieves from the rightful consequences of their actions, to bring the price of being a bad guy back up to where it needs to be, and watch the population of actual bad guys dwindle.

And stop harassing everyone else.

Anyone imprisoned for anything other than theft or aggression is, in truth, a political prisoner. Accidents are not crimes, and while they may create an debt, that in no way involves the State. The US now imprisons a larger percentage of its residents than has any regime in history- more even than those such as Soviet Russia and China, not exactly shining examples of liberty or justice. It's not that Americans are worse than any population in history- it's that the laws are wrong.

When your course of action fails to keep things from getting worse, it's time to do something different. Sometimes, the way it's always been done is also the way it's always been done wrong.

.

Greed- The definition

I think "greed" is basically "self-interest with regard to physical things".

This is not bad in any way, no matter what some people may believe.

However, when you twist that "self-interest with regard to physical things" to where you value it enough to steal, defraud, and/or murder for those things, then that is where you committed the evil act- the greed itself isn't evil.  This is why statism is "greedy" in an evil way- it steals, defrauds, and murders... and claims to be doing it for "the common good".

Everyone is greedy- even those who do altruistic things- otherwise they wouldn't survive. It's how you express that greed that can be the problem.

.

Wading into "preparedness"

Claire Wolfe has been having a preparedness discussion that has a lot of very good information.  Not a hand-wringing TEOTWAWKI- "you GOTTA have ALL this stuff" discussion, but a calm, realistic discussion.

I highly recommend you check it out.


Preparedness priorities, part I

Preparedness priorities, part II

Preparedness priorities, part III

Preparedness priorities, part IV

Preparedness priorities, part V

You can also check out my Preparedness page.

Expect the unexpected. Be adaptable. Survival preps are fun, and they should be fun. If you make them fun people will want to join you. If you make preps tedious and serious people will call you names.

Please don't be like the person I mentioned preparedness to yesterday.  She is convinced there is some basis to the "Mayan Apocalypse" stuff, and that it will actually end up being a good thing, but when I asked if she had set aside "extra food, cash, or whatever", she replied emphatically that no, that was "fear".  I kinda talked her past that, I think, but I wonder why people feel this way about normal "insurance".


.

Perusing Dictionary definitions

I am always having to answer to the fact that "The Dictionary" conflates "anarchy" with "chaos", "destruction", and "disorder".  Or presumably negative concepts to that effect.  And I am not often believed outside the anarchist "community".

People don't seem to like it when I point out that dictionary definitions can be wrong due to common usage being incorrect- eventually if enough people use the word in the wrong way, the dictionary reflects that error.

Such is the case with "anarchy".

Several times I have been asked to give one example of another word that has suffered the same fate, and until now I haven't been able to.

That's right- I said "until now".

I have found another word that the dictionary says means two opposite things.  One word is said to mean both "to examine or consider with attention and in detail" and "to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner".

If you do one, you are not doing the other.  The word is "peruse".

Dictionaries are not infallible, and are subject to accidental errors and intentional manipulation.

.

This prohibition is different

Many times I have pointed out that the old alcohol prohibition (which never really ended, but was just changed to profit a nastier gang) and the current prohibition on politically-incorrect drugs have a lot in common.  Such as creating gang violence and inflating prices and selecting for criminals in the supply of the prohibited substances.  Without making the demand for the substances go away even a little.

There is one big difference between the old alcohol prohibition and the current everything else prohibition, though: the most dangerous gangs this prohibition has spawned are the ones with the badges.

Now, I admit, the old prohibition is not something I have first-hand knowledge of.  And history books often lie.  Still, I'm willing to believe them when they claim the worst prohibition-related violence back then was committed by the "criminals".

That simply isn't the case with the current prohibition.

This time, more innocent people are hurt and killed by the prohibition enforcers.  They are worse, by at least an order of magnitude, than the prohibition violators.

And, even the prohibition violators who cause real harm are outnumbered greatly by those who violate prohibition non-violently.  The same can't be said about the enforcers.  Even the "best" of the prohibition enforcers is destroying lives every time he kidnaps or robs someone who did no actual wrong, but only ignored a counterfeit "law".  And the enforcers who cause real harm also outnumber the prohibition violators who cause real harm.  It's time to put an end to this stupidity.


.

Changes needed to ensure justice

Changes needed to ensure justice

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 21, 2012)

"Justice" is the attempt to take an individual who has been harmed by an act of aggression or property loss and correct the damage; to return the victim to as close to the "pre-victimized condition" as is possible.

What, then, is "injustice"? It is often simply the lack of justice. This could be injustice through omission or a case of justice being impossible to provide. Or, it could be (and often is) the opposite of justice. Anti-justice.

This might be the attempt to harm an individual who has already been harmed by an attack or a theft. Laws that criminalize the failure to report a stolen gun being one example.

Injustice could be the attempt to punish an individual for an offense they didn't actually commit. This happens more than most people want to admit- just check out The Innocence Project to see how many innocent people have been railroaded into a conviction just because "someone needs to be punished" when a law is broken, and because prosecutors and judges want to be seen as "tough on crime".

Injustice could also be the attempt to punish an individual for doing something "illegal" that does not harm any individual nor anyone's private property; a "mala prohibitum" act. There is never any justice involved in prosecuting any victimless crime; doing so always creates a victim out of thin air.

If you advocate, pass, support, or enforce any "law" which attempts to criminalize and punish anything other than a physical attack on an innocent person, or the theft or destruction of private property, the result will always be injustice. If you permit a government court to handle any case where the government is an interested party, an egregious conflict of interest, the result will frequently be injustice.

To ensure justice, some things need to change fundamentally. All laws concerned with anything other than an attack on the innocent or the violation of private property need to be abolished and everyone imprisoned for these false offenses needs to be freed immediately. The incentive to punish someone, anyone, for every crime needs to take a back seat to finding the real perpetrator and making things right with his victim through restitution. Finally, courts need to be separated from the control of the government and there needs to be competition in providing this service.

If you value justice you will insist on these changes; if you only give lip service to justice while actually thirsting for punishment and retribution you'll be content with the status quo. Where do you stand?


.

"Officer safety"

I despise the bogus concept of "officer safety".  What a completely disgusting justification for anything some corrupt cop (redundancy alert) wants to do to you.

Why would a reaver's safety be more important than mine or anyone else's?  Why shouldn't I be able to disarm and cuff any cop I encounter as a safety precaution?  You know, just until I ascertain that he is not a threat to me or to anyone else ("the public")?  Who is actually more likely to shoot whom?  Well, check out the statistics for yourself.

I don't shoot people whom I claim were driving "too fast", or whose tires I claim crossed a painted stripe, just because they don't wish to be stopped and robbed or kidnapped by me.  Cops do.  I don't shoot people who are trying to get away from me.  Cops do.  I don't break into people's houses because they are doing something I don't like, and then murder them if they resist.  Cops do.  I don't rob, kidnap, or murder people for growing some kind of plant.  Cops do.  So exactly who is endangered by whom?

I don't feel endangered by some guy with a holstered gun on his hip, unless he also wears a badge.  Cops do.  I don't even feel endangered by most people who have unholstered their gun- unless, once again, they hide behind a badge.  Cops flip out over that.  The reason I don't is that I am not a coward, I am not paranoid, and I don't go around escalating situations that I initiate.  It's that simple.

If a LEO feels he needs to violate people for his own "safety", it indicates to me that he knows he is guilty of doing things that normal people know are wrong.  A guilty conscience- probably combined with an instinctual knowledge that his victims would be ethically justified in killing him for his evil behavior- makes his own safety become his primary concern.  It shows that he is a violator and a coward, and somewhere deep inside he probably knows it.

If a cop is concerned about his safety, he can do the same things others do for safety.  Wear a seatbelt- or not; don't look down the barrel of your gun to see if it's loaded; don't initiate car chases; don't trespass; don't rob; don't be an aggressor; don't stick your tongue into light sockets; don't harass people who are minding their own business; and don't interfere with travelers.  Distilled down: don't be an idiot or a prick and your safety factor increases exponentially.

But this is too hard for people whose brains are encumbered with the Enforcer Defect.

They want to be able to be a bad guy and still go home at the end of their shift- after doing the wrong thing for hours at your expense.  Well, Officer, the rest of us have just as much right to go home at the end of your shift as you do.  And unless we are stupid enough to seek you out, our lives are worth more than yours could ever be.  We didn't start it.  And we outrank you, since you are supposed to be our servant.  You're a butler-gone-bad.

Your cowardice, paranoia, and your sense of entitlement is an indication that you can't be trusted with any amount of "authority".  You need to go find an honest job and stop being a predator.  Unfortunately most cops can't handle a real job- especially one that has real risks beyond the minuscule "risks" their preferred "career" entails.  That's obvious since they keep being cops.

Well, Mr. Cop, your safety means as much to me as the safety of a rapist.  I don't need your "help".  You're fired.  Now, go away.


.

Wonders never cease...

I just spoke to a Texas family member who is a very staunch Republican.

He just told me he sent in his absentee ballot- and voted straight Libertarian.

He was tired of voting for Republicans who are indistinguishable from the Democrats- and that's really all there are.  He wanted to send a message to the Republicans.

Now, I'm ambivalent about v*ting (as Claire Wolfe would write it)- I don't think it's the right thing for me to do right now.  But for you?  You'll have to decide that for yourself.  But it still tickled me to hear how he voted.

So, how about it, disenfranchised Republicans and Democrats?  You can overcome the inertia.  Voting for your parties' nominees is a wasted vote.  It tells them that you like what they've been doing and how they've been doing it.  For decades.

Do something different this one time and see if you don't feel better about yourself.  Either vote for someone in a third party (and if you do that you might as well vote for the guys and gals who are in the third LARGEST party), or refuse to play a completely rigged game at all.

The choice is yours... choose wisely.


.

Who is the real danger?

Who is a greater danger to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

Freelance criminals?  Or cops?

Anytime one goes out in public, and many times when you think you are safe in your own home, you are in danger of being victimized by an aggressor or thief.

The chance of being victimized on any particular day is very small. Of course, it does happen without warning every single day to many people, all of whom thought it wouldn't happen to them and couldn't happen here.  You should always be prepared.

Many people (more than the anti-liberty bigots/gun-haters suspect) take responsibility for their own safety, and the safety of the innocent people around them, by carrying a weapon.  With or, in most cases, without government permission.

Unfortunately for civilization, the chance of being stopped and attacked by a cop who is willing to enforce victim disarmament "laws", having your weapon discovered, and being kidnapped or murdered, grows larger each and every day that those counterfeit "laws" stay "on the books".

Carrying a weapon "deeply" enough that it is less likely to be seen by the reavers makes it much harder to access when needed in a hurry to fend off an attacker or thief.  But this is the reality of the world we live in.  You weigh the risks and decide which risk is greater.

You can avoid the danger of being attacked by the badged reavers for the "crime" of taking personal responsibility for your own safety by abdicating that responsibility and walking around unarmed. Or you can beg permission from The State to be "allowed" to carry a weapon.  Subject to their whims, restrictions, disarmament zones, fees, and inclusion in criminal databases, of course.

Either of these poor options robs you of your humanity in a real way, since it is an admission that you belong to The State.

Unfortunately, the danger from government enforcers is probably greater today than the danger of being victimized by freelance criminals. It makes the decision more difficult.

You have to decide based upon your incomplete assessment of the situation surrounding you- Who is a bigger danger: criminals or cops?  I know who I think is more dangerous.

I expect to be able to go my whole life without ever being put in much real danger from an encounter with a "criminal"- danger that I can't handle- but I have already had several encounters with cops that could have turned deadly if the cop was simply having a bad day.  So far, I've lucked out, but I know who is more dangerous to the good guys.


.

Finally- a distinction worth noticing

The impossible- no, the highly improbable- has happened.

Whereas I had previously thought there is no difference between the two Obamney puppets, the supporters of one have finally made a difference.

It's official: due to the actions of Romney's supporters, I now actually hate him worse than I hate Obama.  That is quite an achievement.  You should be proud of yourselves.

The candidates themselves couldn't have achieved that.  There is nothing substantive, and very little that is vanishingly trivial, to distinguish Obamney 1.0 from Obamney 2.0.  Being unwillingly subjected to their vacuous words and insane opinions wherever I turn couldn't even have accomplished this (but I have managed to avoid this fate).  Only rabid supporters could.

I know that if there were an actual "conservative", with an "R" after his name, on the ballot, you guys would despise Romney and would be doing everything possible to defeat him.  He is the anathema of everything you stand for- according to your apparently forgotten words.  But you are blinded by your hatred of Obama.  I'm not.  I can see that your guy is just as big a socialist- just as corrupt- just as deviant in his beliefs- as that which you now claim to hate in order to create a difference where none exists.

No, I don't like Obama one bit.  I simply hate Romney just a little bit more.

Congratulations, Romnoids.


.

Withholding relief = torture

I, and many others, refer to the "War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs" as stupid and evil.

If you have any doubts about those adjectives, you haven't been paying attention.

To keep self-destructive people from harming themselves (probably impossible), and to keep others from doing something they think is fun (also probably impossible), the drug thugs keep sick people from getting desperately-needed relief. That isn't just stupid, it's evil.

Now, whether marijuana / Cannabis is the magical miracle cure-all that some claim it is or not is irrelevant.  Aspirin doesn't cure the root cause of a headache or muscle soreness, but people take it anyway, just for temporary relief.  Why shouldn't they?

And, just maybe, there is something to all the clinical studies (the non-government ones) that show Cannabis to be a powerful cancer fighter.  Along with having other benefits.  But what if it doesn't cure anything?

If marijuana can make a chronically miserable person feel a little better for a while that is all the justification needed for using it- as if any justification were necessary.  Which it isn't.

I have a couple of dear friends who are in constant pain from health conditions.  Because they continue to be in constant pain I suspect that they avoid the simple relief they could have because it is "illegal".  That absolutely infuriates me!

You have no business telling someone else what they can introduce into their bloodstream.  None.  Pretending you do is just wrong.  There is no excuse for it.

And murdering people for possessing a plant or any other politically-incorrect drug is just plain evil.

If you support the War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs you might as well  be honest about what you support.  Go out and start torturing children and murdering parents yourself instead of hiring thugs with badges to do your evil work while you stay out of harm's way.


.

The opposite of America

First off, I will say that no State is legitimate.  Not one.  To create one that is can't be done.  The very nature of being a State is filled with illegitimacy from the very foundation and throughout its entire structure.

But, I get really tired of those who mistake "The United States of America" for "America".

They are two entirely different things.

Back in the beginning of America, when those states that made it up were written about collectively, it was always called "the united States of America".  No capitalized "u".  America was what mattered.  The states taken together made up America.  One American state would have been "a state of America"; two would have been "two states of America", and if two governors declared war on each other, their states could have been referred to as "warring states of America".  There were states, they joined together in America, but their union was not the primary focus.

Suppose, using a personal example, I referred to my family as the "the joined individuals of the McManigal family".  It would be ridiculous for anyone to primarily think of us as "The Joined Individuals", rather than "McManigals.  It would be substituting the description for the actual thing.

To think of America as "The United States", or even "The United States of America", is just as ridiculous.  

The United States is just the group of evil individuals, the government or "The State", who happen to currently prevent America from experiencing the full flower of liberty that was all that America was supposed to be about.

The United States is the worst enemy America has ever faced.  America is only America as long as it protects the individual from the tyranny of The United States.  Apparently that's a battle America lost and The United States of "America" won.

Time to reboot.  Let's dispense with The State next time, and instead just stay out of the way as people freely associate in a truly voluntary manner.

.

You are responsible for your choices

You are responsible for your choices

(My Clovis News Journal/Portales News-Tribune column for September 14, 2012.)

In the end, I am only responsible for what I do.

I can make sure my kids are raised with my values and principles, but that doesn't guarantee they will follow when they're grown. I can let people know when they are doing the wrong thing, and refuse to go along, but if they have adopted a different value system they won't necessarily accept mine. I can try to lead by example and try to inform people so that they may realize things they had never before considered, but I can't force anyone to learn anything they don't wish to learn. I can do my best, yet it is not my responsibility when anyone else continues down the wrong path.

When it comes right down to it you can make only yourself do what you know to be right.

But, while I am only responsible for me, I am FULLY responsible for me. If I do the wrong thing I can't blame it on a bad "law" or on the expectations of other people. It isn't circumstances that cause one to attack the innocent or steal, or to accept property that others have stolen on your behalf. The requirements of a job don't excuse any unethical actions, nor does the support of "the majority". Making up different names for coercion or theft doesn't magically make wrong become right.

On one hand, it is a heavy burden to refuse to blame others for your actions, but on the other hand it is quite liberating to realize that it is pointless to accept the blame for other people. To further lighten your load, be mindful of all you do.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but it seems a lot of people "get it", even if they feel unable to express themselves openly around their peers. Almost every week I have at least one person approach me to thank me for saying what they are thinking. That this many are seeing through the smoke and mirrors of The State is inspiring. Maybe eventually enough people will realize that there is strength in being right, and that we are millions strong- one at a time, and the institutionalized theft and coercion will no longer be tolerated.

But if not, the more of us who refuse to do the wrong thing, even when acceptable, the better society will become. The tipping point is approaching. Help bring it on by accepting the responsibility for all you do.


.

Accepting welfare- wrong, right, or neither?

I may be on the verge of changing my mind and deciding I have been wrong.  For a long time.

At least on the subject of welfare.

The inconsistency of those who complain about people on welfare, while collecting their own types of welfare, has always annoyed me.  Plus, I would rather see idlers collecting welfare for doing nothing than see a reaver collecting his government paycheck- still welfare- for enforcing "laws" that cause actual harm.  So maybe I haven't been quite as opposed to welfare all along as some others have been.

I would probably qualify for a lot of welfare programs.  "Health care", food stamps, and whatever else that might be out there that doesn't require a history of government "service" to be eligible.  Funny, but I don't even know what welfare is offered.

Anyway...

Some people I have been discussing this with have actually made me question my belief that it would always be wrong for me to accept any sort of welfare. I am mostly recalling this train of thought just from my own remembrance of the points brought up and if I misquote what anyone actually said, I apologize.  I hope I get the gist right, anyway.

It started off with someone suggesting that a good way to topple the State is to bleed it dry, signing up for every handout you can get.  Claire Wolfe calls this type of person, when they are doing it for the cause of liberty, a "Cockapoo".  I have always been highly suspicious of the Cockapoo, suspecting that they simply want to justify getting handouts.  But if they do, that is their business- I just want them to be honest about it.

Then it was pointed out that Jim Davies has written that he believes it is OK to take the handouts.  Hmm. I really respect his opinions.

Yet, Carl Watner, whom I also respect, says it is not OK.  Back to square one.

One thing I worry about, were I to go this route, is developing a dependency on the handouts.  Would the harm I do to myself be greater than any "benefit" I could gain?

One person suggested to me that a way to avoid this dependency is to use the handouts (or the money "saved" by accepting the handouts) for investing.  I would think buying gold and silver, guns and ammo, and stocking up on food and survival supplies would be a good investment.  A nicer TV, not so much.  Then, if/when the handouts stop coming, you haven't become dependent on them, but have actually given yourself a tangible safety net.  Maybe so, anyway.

But are there drawbacks beyond dependency?

Even if I didn't succumb to dependency, would I be setting a bad example? Is this act truly the same thing as "recovering stolen property"?  My stolen property is long gone.  Probably none of it actually went to any welfare recipients, regardless of what "conservatives" say.  The money that goes to welfare payments and government paychecks is "created" out of thin air by the Federal Reserve or banks.  Is the act of accepting welfare, then, still "receiving stolen property", stolen from others instead of from my earlier self, as I have always thought of it?  I really don't know.

Another problem I see is "What would people think?"

Maybe I don't care about this as much as some people do, but I still don't want to destroy any good influence I may have had over the years.  Maybe I give myself too much credit there, but it's an uplifting delusion.  Would my going on welfare say to people "Hey, I now depend on the government for my very survival, so see how great and necessary The State is- even for me!".  Would I look like a hypocrite to the average statist around me?

Sure, getting the money could be viewed as simply compensating for the money and opportunity being stolen by government- just trying to balance the equation.  If not for the interference of government I am quite sure I would be more successful than I am.  True or not, it's what I believe without having any way of knowing for certain.  Does The State owe me for this act of economic wrong perpetrated upon me?  Or am I just looking for justification?

I truly am not sure what to think about this yet.  At this point it is just a mental exercise.  I dislike admitting I was wrong as much as anyone, but I hate being wrong and remaining wrong even more.  It would be just as bad as being right and changing my mind and becoming wrong.

So, what do you think?  Weigh in on the matter and tell me what I have missed.


.

How Stupid?

Here's an amusing blog post that was brought to my attention:  How Stupid are Americans?


.

Backed into corners...

Recently I read that if you don't have a Facebook page, the feds consider this suspicious.  You might just be a terrorist.

On the other hand, the army's little exercise in paranoia says that if you do participate in "social networks", such as Facebook, that is a sign you might be a violent extremist.

Hmmm.

And, of course, anyone who likes the Constitution is a domestic enemy.  As is anyone, again according to the army, who expresses hatred for the Constitution.

Terrorist if you do; terrorist if you don't.

So if you ever had any doubt that you are a suspected, violent extremist and domestic terrorist, it should now be resolved.  The feds have spoken.  YOU are their enemy.

Might as well enjoy it.


.

Self defense, not "vigilantism"

America really is filled with idiots.

I was commenting on a story about school bullies, and someone responded to my comment, saying that "since vigilantism will never be legal, we need police to deal with juvenile assaults just as they would with adult assaults".  (Except all those committed by the reavers, themselves, I suppose.)

Slow down, Pokey.  Self defense is NOT vigilantism.  Not by a long shot.

I hate vigilantes.  What they do doesn't qualify as self defense, but as revenge or retribution.  They are no better than government goons.

Self defense is just the act of stopping yourself from being harmed by someone who is attacking you.  That is your responsibility- whether you choose to fulfill it or not.  If you fight back against someone who is attempting to steal from you this is defense of property, not of "self".  But it is still fine and dandy.  Fight back!  Don't let bad guys get away with it.

But, once they do "get away", following them to exact revenge is not the best way to deal with it.  It is too easy to target the wrong person at this point.  If you feel you must anyway, then you accept full responsibility for any mistakes you make and you will be held accountable.  As you should be.

.