State should stay out of economy
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 19, 2012)
The Clovis cosmetics plant fiasco is a good demonstration of the truth that the best thing government can do, about the economy and everything else, is: nothing. It's a result that it seems anyone who doesn't look at life through the "beer goggles" of government could have seen coming. Judging from comments I saw when the deal was first announced, I'd say many are not surprised.
Yes, the area could use more jobs, but handing out "tax" money to bring them in is just not a good idea, even if you believe it is ethical to do so. Apparently, it doesn't even work.
By all means give new companies a tax break, as a good first step. All new companies. Don't play favorites. Then get rid of local "laws" that prevent some businesses from operating in the area, eliminate red tape and anti-business regulations and zoning, and eliminate all the government fees and licenses. Deal with any actual problems- fraud, theft, faulty products, breach of contract- as they arise rather than punishing everyone based upon "what might happen".
Get out of the way and allow the free market to exist, and then stay out of the way to allow it to work. This is a big problem crippling the economy all across America: there has been no free market in at least a century. And yet, economic woes are somehow still blamed on "too little regulation" by the socialists who get all the attention. It's sickening.
Blaming the free market, or some imaginary "lack of regulation" for recent economic woes is like blaming ghosts for the loss of your chickens. The supposed culprit was nowhere near the scene of the crime.
America can't afford this kind of economic interference anymore. If it ever could.
The city still claims it didn't lose the money it handed out. Sure, the city can foreclose on the property in order to get its "investment" back- but unless someone buys that foreclosed property, what good does that do? The money is still wasted. It doesn't seem that the property is in great demand, otherwise someone would have purchased it on their own, voluntarily, without expecting government to give them money for the project.
Maybe somehow the deal will still pan out. Or, perhaps the property will get foreclosed and someone else will come along and buy it to start a business that will boost the local economy. If this happens, no one will have learned anything, but the harm will at least be mitigated. That's better than nothing.
.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Government should stay out...
I often hear a certain segment of the population say government should stay out of our bedrooms. True. But it doesn't go far enough.
They- those individuals who lower themselves to the point of working for government in some capacity- should stay off our property completely.
They should stay out of our bedrooms, our kitchens, our medicine cabinets, our pockets, our living rooms, our garages, our bars, our pet stores, our restaurants, our gun shops, our doctors' offices, our schools, our hospitals, our banks, our factories, our airports ... government should stay out of our lives.
A complete separation of life and State. Staying out of our bedrooms is just the beginning.
.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Biology trumps all- except denial
I hesitate to post this one, because I know people will make assumptions and jump to conclusions and use this opinion as justification to dislike me. Oh well. Truth sometimes hurts.
There is a woman I have known since I was a teenager. She has been a friend of one of my sisters since they were pretty young. Her husband was a youth director at a church. He apparently got caught "hitting on" (sexting? flirting with?) "young people" and lost his job. And lost his wife. He admitted doing it, and said he "has had this problem for a long time". (I neither know nor care whether he actually did anything physical.)
There are plenty of legitimate reasons his wife could be angry at him or dislike him over this. His violation of their marriage contract, for example. Or the loss of his job. Maybe even the fact that he used his position of "authority" as a way to find extramarital adventure.
But not because of who he is attracted to. That isn't a "problem", it is basic biological programming. Yet this is her apparent justification for ending the marriage in disgust.
Once a young person develops secondary sexual characteristics they become attractive to any normal sexually aware human (of whichever sex is attracted to their sex). And, no person who is attracted to these sexually-developed young people can be honestly called a "pedophile"- these are not "children" in any meaningful sense of the word. The artificial extension of "childhood" is a tragedy that is having disastrous social consequences, of which this subject is just one example.
Throughout most of human history, people of this age were sexually active, married, and reproducing. It is not "wrong"; it just is what it is. Youth is also attractive since that is a marker of "good breeding potential". Sounds crass, but it is true, biologically and psychologically. People can lie to others, or even to themselves, about this attraction, but it doesn't change the reality of the biological programming.
This biological truth trumps religion. It trumps "law". It trumps a wife's wishes. It even trumps social programming and the risk of self-loathing.
I suspect a lot of people who find a job working with young people seek that kind of job specifically because of this stimulation. Most of them probably never act on it due to social taboos, and they may not even recognize this attraction in themselves because of how they have been trained. But it is there. And sometimes, in some people, it will come to the surface.
As long as it is mutually consensual, no "law" can make it wrong. If it isn't mutually consensual, no "law" can make it right. And that includes sex.
.
There is a woman I have known since I was a teenager. She has been a friend of one of my sisters since they were pretty young. Her husband was a youth director at a church. He apparently got caught "hitting on" (sexting? flirting with?) "young people" and lost his job. And lost his wife. He admitted doing it, and said he "has had this problem for a long time". (I neither know nor care whether he actually did anything physical.)
There are plenty of legitimate reasons his wife could be angry at him or dislike him over this. His violation of their marriage contract, for example. Or the loss of his job. Maybe even the fact that he used his position of "authority" as a way to find extramarital adventure.
But not because of who he is attracted to. That isn't a "problem", it is basic biological programming. Yet this is her apparent justification for ending the marriage in disgust.
Once a young person develops secondary sexual characteristics they become attractive to any normal sexually aware human (of whichever sex is attracted to their sex). And, no person who is attracted to these sexually-developed young people can be honestly called a "pedophile"- these are not "children" in any meaningful sense of the word. The artificial extension of "childhood" is a tragedy that is having disastrous social consequences, of which this subject is just one example.
Throughout most of human history, people of this age were sexually active, married, and reproducing. It is not "wrong"; it just is what it is. Youth is also attractive since that is a marker of "good breeding potential". Sounds crass, but it is true, biologically and psychologically. People can lie to others, or even to themselves, about this attraction, but it doesn't change the reality of the biological programming.
This biological truth trumps religion. It trumps "law". It trumps a wife's wishes. It even trumps social programming and the risk of self-loathing.
I suspect a lot of people who find a job working with young people seek that kind of job specifically because of this stimulation. Most of them probably never act on it due to social taboos, and they may not even recognize this attraction in themselves because of how they have been trained. But it is there. And sometimes, in some people, it will come to the surface.
As long as it is mutually consensual, no "law" can make it wrong. If it isn't mutually consensual, no "law" can make it right. And that includes sex.
.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Gasoline at $9 per gallon? For your own good...
I have heard from time to time that the government's "Energy Secretary" (what a useless "job"!) wants gas prices to be between $7 and $9 per gallon, in order to coerce less usage. I wouldn't doubt it, even though the tale may be apocryphal.
My dad blames this on (false) environmentalists. He's missing the mark.
The government is anti-travel. It has been for a long time- since long before I was born.
Just look at all the anti-travel "laws" and regulations it has put in place: "driver's licenses", license plates for cars, "drunk driving" laws, speed limits- all violations of the fundamental human right to travel unmolested, and all imposed by government. Notice the pattern?
Sure, special interests/idiots clamor for one restriction or another, "for the common good" or for "safety", or to prevent theft, or whatever, and since the implications of the suggestions are anti-travel, the government is very happy to oblige. The new restrictions are put in place and travel gets outlawed just a little more.
Who is really to blame? It isn't the (false) environmentalists, it isn't the AAA (in the case of those "driver's licenses" all those years ago), it isn't the tee-totalers- they are just the useful idiots the government uses to get what it wants imposed on the rest of us. And when we reject the lies and object to the new restrictions, we are castigated for being "selfish", inconsiderate, or " a danger to society".
Just like the gun "laws" imposed by this same herd of anti-liberty bigots, the restrictions on travel bring to mind just one thought: Not one more inch!
.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Seeing both sides
I think I see both (or more) sides of too many issues. Seriously.
The "welfare thing" for example. And lots of others.
It doesn't help me much, when trying to decide whom to defend. It doesn't mean I think both sides are valid for me. Or ethical for me. But it makes it harder to condemn others for some of their positions. Maybe that's a good thing.
If you are personally attacking the innocent, or stealing or destroying their property (or the value thereof), then I cut you no slack. This is why I can't excuse cops for their acts.
But, on so many other issues the "black and white" is not so clear... if it even exists at all. At least as I see it.
Certainty is so much more comfortable.
.
The "welfare thing" for example. And lots of others.
It doesn't help me much, when trying to decide whom to defend. It doesn't mean I think both sides are valid for me. Or ethical for me. But it makes it harder to condemn others for some of their positions. Maybe that's a good thing.
If you are personally attacking the innocent, or stealing or destroying their property (or the value thereof), then I cut you no slack. This is why I can't excuse cops for their acts.
But, on so many other issues the "black and white" is not so clear... if it even exists at all. At least as I see it.
Certainty is so much more comfortable.
.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Emotionalism Part 2- "Super-Love"
As I said in Part 1, I often see the irrational "super-hatred" aimed at "sex offenders", while the irrational "super-love" frequently goes to "law enforcement" and the military. But this is just two sides of the same corroded coin, and is often due to people being "too close" to the issue.
I'll focus on the irrational "super-love" this time.
One thing that really bothers me are those libertarians who make excuses for the inexcusable. Those who "super-love" the enforcers (and to a lesser degree, any government tool). Maybe a loved one is a cop or in the military, or for some other reason a strong feeling of devotion is experienced toward these enforcers and hired killers. Maybe they are under the belief that enforcers are "a vital necessity" to keep predators from hurting innocent people. Sure, it's a delusion, but it can seem very "reasonable" to them.
Recently on facebook I made a comment that was not "respectful" of the FBI. In the story someone said, of their consideration to join something like the FBI, that they wanted to "stop bad". O---kay....
I responded:
It seemed a common sense reply to what I assume was a sincere remark. I see nothing in my comment that should be offensive to any honest and consistent person. Or so I thought...
I was told, in a reply from a self-proclaimed libertarian (my "boss"), that:
My response to this comment was too short due to me responding from my Kindle, so I will expand it here.
FBI agents are not "good guys". For several reasons.
First, they are among the "true bad guys out there who will kill or harm others"- if they restricted this killing and harming to people who were initiating force or stealing, then they would be provisional "good guys". They don't.
Cops of any sort are NOT "protecting the public", they are the primary predators in society today. And their actions and enforcement of those admittedly "bad and stupid policies" is the only thing that gives those bad and stupid policies the ability to harm anyone. The actions those cops take protect the freelance predators from reaping the just consequences of their actions. This is even pretending there is such a thing as a "good cop".
And to claim that "not every one of the FBI or local police or bureaucrats are bad guys" is missing the truth. The FBI is unconstitutional. If you believe the Constitution is what gives the US government its legitimacy, then FBI agents are bad guys before they even enforce their first counterfeit "law", and in doing so either initiate force or steal. And kidnap. Their very existence is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution- where is a federal police force specifically authorized? Nowhere. If it isn't specifically authorized, it is illegal. So every FBI employee is a criminal. If you are not burdened by devotion to a constitution, then you don't even have to go that far to see that they are all bad- their initiation of force and their other enforcement of counterfeit "laws" is enough to show their wrongness regardless of their lack of Constitutional authority. Even when occasional good comes from their actions.
A "good cop" would not keep his job for even one day. The first counterfeit "law" he was caught not enforcing would be his last act as a cop. You can not enforce these things and be a good guy. Not even once. There is no such thing as a good cop. But there are some that are better and some that are worse.
As for the bureaucrats- name one bureaucrat who never violates the property rights of those who are forced to deal with his bureaucracy. You can't violate property rights as part of your job and be a "good guy". So if you are collecting fines, fees, selling licenses, writing up ordinances, dealing in permits, or any other bureaucratic "job", you are not a good guy. Not in your "official capacity", anyway. But, I admit, you may do some good on occasion- particularly by breaking the rules for the cause of liberty or to protect an innocent person from the unjust rules. It would still be better to get an honest job.
If, as the commenter admitted, people have "an individual right to make stupid choices", then using violence and kidnapping to violate this right is evil. Period.
Defending these guys is a very anti-libertarian thing to do.
I understand the desire to throw support behind something that at first glance sounds like it might be good for you, individually, or for "society". (What I don't understand is the fear or helplessness that seems to be at the root of the belief that these thugs "protect" you.) I understand the desire to look up to "authority", or someone you have been trained from birth to respect and revere. It just really bothers me when libertarians ignore the principles of liberty because they have let their emotions get in the way.
.
I'll focus on the irrational "super-love" this time.
One thing that really bothers me are those libertarians who make excuses for the inexcusable. Those who "super-love" the enforcers (and to a lesser degree, any government tool). Maybe a loved one is a cop or in the military, or for some other reason a strong feeling of devotion is experienced toward these enforcers and hired killers. Maybe they are under the belief that enforcers are "a vital necessity" to keep predators from hurting innocent people. Sure, it's a delusion, but it can seem very "reasonable" to them.
Recently on facebook I made a comment that was not "respectful" of the FBI. In the story someone said, of their consideration to join something like the FBI, that they wanted to "stop bad". O---kay....
I responded:
"You want to 'stop bad'? Don't join a gang like the FBI. Refuse to attack innocent people and don't violate anyone's property rights. Not even if it's your 'job'. Don't support the evil and stupid 'war on politically incorrect drugs' which fuels so much of the aggression in America and beyond. And stand up to those who do- especially when they lie and tell you they are 'the good guys'. Don't be a part of the problem."
It seemed a common sense reply to what I assume was a sincere remark. I see nothing in my comment that should be offensive to any honest and consistent person. Or so I thought...
I was told, in a reply from a self-proclaimed libertarian (my "boss"), that:
"[N]ot every good guy is a bad guy. There are true bad guys out there who will kill or harm others, and it takes good cops at all levels to protect the public from that. Are there personal violations that police or other government officials cause, to people and/or their property? Of course, that is and always has been the case. But not every one of the FBI or local police or bureaucrats are bad guys. There are more bad or stupid policies, like drug control, that detract from freedoms. I agree with you that people have an individual right to make stupid choices."
My response to this comment was too short due to me responding from my Kindle, so I will expand it here.
FBI agents are not "good guys". For several reasons.
First, they are among the "true bad guys out there who will kill or harm others"- if they restricted this killing and harming to people who were initiating force or stealing, then they would be provisional "good guys". They don't.
Cops of any sort are NOT "protecting the public", they are the primary predators in society today. And their actions and enforcement of those admittedly "bad and stupid policies" is the only thing that gives those bad and stupid policies the ability to harm anyone. The actions those cops take protect the freelance predators from reaping the just consequences of their actions. This is even pretending there is such a thing as a "good cop".
And to claim that "not every one of the FBI or local police or bureaucrats are bad guys" is missing the truth. The FBI is unconstitutional. If you believe the Constitution is what gives the US government its legitimacy, then FBI agents are bad guys before they even enforce their first counterfeit "law", and in doing so either initiate force or steal. And kidnap. Their very existence is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution- where is a federal police force specifically authorized? Nowhere. If it isn't specifically authorized, it is illegal. So every FBI employee is a criminal. If you are not burdened by devotion to a constitution, then you don't even have to go that far to see that they are all bad- their initiation of force and their other enforcement of counterfeit "laws" is enough to show their wrongness regardless of their lack of Constitutional authority. Even when occasional good comes from their actions.
A "good cop" would not keep his job for even one day. The first counterfeit "law" he was caught not enforcing would be his last act as a cop. You can not enforce these things and be a good guy. Not even once. There is no such thing as a good cop. But there are some that are better and some that are worse.
As for the bureaucrats- name one bureaucrat who never violates the property rights of those who are forced to deal with his bureaucracy. You can't violate property rights as part of your job and be a "good guy". So if you are collecting fines, fees, selling licenses, writing up ordinances, dealing in permits, or any other bureaucratic "job", you are not a good guy. Not in your "official capacity", anyway. But, I admit, you may do some good on occasion- particularly by breaking the rules for the cause of liberty or to protect an innocent person from the unjust rules. It would still be better to get an honest job.
If, as the commenter admitted, people have "an individual right to make stupid choices", then using violence and kidnapping to violate this right is evil. Period.
Defending these guys is a very anti-libertarian thing to do.
I understand the desire to throw support behind something that at first glance sounds like it might be good for you, individually, or for "society". (What I don't understand is the fear or helplessness that seems to be at the root of the belief that these thugs "protect" you.) I understand the desire to look up to "authority", or someone you have been trained from birth to respect and revere. It just really bothers me when libertarians ignore the principles of liberty because they have let their emotions get in the way.
.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Respecting liberty to fix America
Respecting liberty to fix America
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 12, 2012)
What is "America"? America isn't the landmass, although it does sit on a spectacular and rich piece of real estate.
America isn't the shared history, although that is a vital thread that gets neglected, inverted, or obscured today.
America isn't the US government or those employed by it, nor is it the massive mountain of "laws" that government has imposed.
America isn't even the individuals living here. Many who have lived here for generations, both in and out of government, violate everything America is with everything they advocate or support.
What America is, at its very core, is a way of respecting the liberty of the individual that had never been tried before.
An argument could be made that it was the Constitution- or better yet, the ideals spelled out in the Declaration of Independence- that made America what it was. Not perfect, but a good start.
A great many people feel, for one reason or another, that they owe an obligation of obedience, or even loyalty, to the government authority in America. What they miss is the fact that this "authority" is not embodied in any person or group of people. Not the president, the congress, or any employee or agent of the government. If there is any authority called "The United States of America" that you should respect, it is only in the Constitution.
Any government employee, from the president to the congress or the Supreme Court, is a legitimate government authority only as long as he strictly obeys the law that sets out his job parameters. When he fudges that obedience he is no longer a legitimate authority and you owe him nothing.
That means if he works for the government and supports any gun "law", no matter how "reasonable", he loses all authority. That means if he rules that the Patriot Act is "legal" (in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of the Constitution) he is no longer an authority. It means if he signs a health care bill, or a wealth redistribution plan, or keeps supporting any department or agency not specifically authorized, by name and function, in the Constitution, he has lost his claim to be an authority of the government. He is not "America".
This realization may disturb some people, but it may allow others to finally defeat the cognitive dissonance caused by feeling they are supposed to respect the government authority, while knowing that what government employees and agents do is wrong. They have been misinterpreting just what the authority is all along and throwing their support or obedience behind the false authority.
Getting this right is the first step in fixing America.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 12, 2012)
What is "America"? America isn't the landmass, although it does sit on a spectacular and rich piece of real estate.
America isn't the shared history, although that is a vital thread that gets neglected, inverted, or obscured today.
America isn't the US government or those employed by it, nor is it the massive mountain of "laws" that government has imposed.
America isn't even the individuals living here. Many who have lived here for generations, both in and out of government, violate everything America is with everything they advocate or support.
What America is, at its very core, is a way of respecting the liberty of the individual that had never been tried before.
An argument could be made that it was the Constitution- or better yet, the ideals spelled out in the Declaration of Independence- that made America what it was. Not perfect, but a good start.
A great many people feel, for one reason or another, that they owe an obligation of obedience, or even loyalty, to the government authority in America. What they miss is the fact that this "authority" is not embodied in any person or group of people. Not the president, the congress, or any employee or agent of the government. If there is any authority called "The United States of America" that you should respect, it is only in the Constitution.
Any government employee, from the president to the congress or the Supreme Court, is a legitimate government authority only as long as he strictly obeys the law that sets out his job parameters. When he fudges that obedience he is no longer a legitimate authority and you owe him nothing.
That means if he works for the government and supports any gun "law", no matter how "reasonable", he loses all authority. That means if he rules that the Patriot Act is "legal" (in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of the Constitution) he is no longer an authority. It means if he signs a health care bill, or a wealth redistribution plan, or keeps supporting any department or agency not specifically authorized, by name and function, in the Constitution, he has lost his claim to be an authority of the government. He is not "America".
This realization may disturb some people, but it may allow others to finally defeat the cognitive dissonance caused by feeling they are supposed to respect the government authority, while knowing that what government employees and agents do is wrong. They have been misinterpreting just what the authority is all along and throwing their support or obedience behind the false authority.
Getting this right is the first step in fixing America.
.
Emotionalism part 1- "Super-Hate"
Emotionalism. We are all susceptible. But too often this is the excuse for initiating force, or even (shudder) calling for government to stick it to ... whoever we are emotional over. Or, it can be expressed by defending- against all reason- someone who is a real bad guy, but whom we "like" for one reason or another (this I'll discuss in Part 2).
I often see the irrational "super-hatred" aimed at "sex offenders".
Most of the time, but not always, this emotionalism is due to people being "too close" to the issue. Maybe a "sex offender" abused them, or scared them, or they are worried about that sort of thing potentially happening more than most people are. Unless you or someone you know has been violently violated in a sexual way, I think this "super-hate" gives sex a magical mystical quality that it doesn't really have, probably due to a certain degree of anti-sexualism or "Victorian" attitudes. Perhaps in some people's lives it does have this power, and it lacks this power in other people's lives. One size does not fit all.
Many times over the years I have watched as libertarian friends went ballistic in unlibertarian-seeming ways in their hatred of "sex offenders" who never actually initiated any force, but who lived up to the "offender" part of the label by offending someone (such as "the public").
I don't know of any other accusation where the accusation alone is sufficient to create this hatred. Not only that, but anyone who suggests that the alleged actions may not have actually happened, or may not be wrong in and of themselves gets covered by the "super-hate" along with the accused. With accusations of theft or murder, anyone recognizing that the accused may not be guilty doesn't get treated this way, and neither does the accused in most cases.
It didn't matter that I basically agreed that their conjectured or real scenarios weren't good- I apparently didn't go far enough in my hatred, and I dared see the other side- and see that accusations do not equal guilt, and that if no force was initiated, the Zero Aggression Principle wasn't violated. And, I admit I often played it up longer than necessary to see where it would go and see whether the root of the hatred would come up. It usually eventually did.
One big part of the problem is that making exceptions for government intrusion or personal initiation of force is that once you let that camel get his nose under the tent, you can't stop it from lifting his head and removing your protection completely. You only deserve the liberty you respect in others- even those you despise.
Once you stop reasoning with regards to someone, your enemies can move you just a bit further toward their position. They make it OK to hate someone for their own purposes. "Liberty doesn't deal with this issue- let us take care of it for you." Or, the non-governmental way to say this is "Well, this really offends me, so I'll say this is an initiation of force, or a credible imminent threat to initiate force, and I'll use 'defensive' force against this person. It's OK. Really."
In either case, there is a danger of "mission creep". Actually, let me re-phrase that- there is probably a guarantee of "mission creep". More things will either "need" government "help" or will be called "aggression", so the justifications will get easier. It's not just a slippery slope; it's one you willingly ran toward and jumped down. And, bit by bit, your liberty is destroyed.
.
I often see the irrational "super-hatred" aimed at "sex offenders".
Most of the time, but not always, this emotionalism is due to people being "too close" to the issue. Maybe a "sex offender" abused them, or scared them, or they are worried about that sort of thing potentially happening more than most people are. Unless you or someone you know has been violently violated in a sexual way, I think this "super-hate" gives sex a magical mystical quality that it doesn't really have, probably due to a certain degree of anti-sexualism or "Victorian" attitudes. Perhaps in some people's lives it does have this power, and it lacks this power in other people's lives. One size does not fit all.
Many times over the years I have watched as libertarian friends went ballistic in unlibertarian-seeming ways in their hatred of "sex offenders" who never actually initiated any force, but who lived up to the "offender" part of the label by offending someone (such as "the public").
I don't know of any other accusation where the accusation alone is sufficient to create this hatred. Not only that, but anyone who suggests that the alleged actions may not have actually happened, or may not be wrong in and of themselves gets covered by the "super-hate" along with the accused. With accusations of theft or murder, anyone recognizing that the accused may not be guilty doesn't get treated this way, and neither does the accused in most cases.
It didn't matter that I basically agreed that their conjectured or real scenarios weren't good- I apparently didn't go far enough in my hatred, and I dared see the other side- and see that accusations do not equal guilt, and that if no force was initiated, the Zero Aggression Principle wasn't violated. And, I admit I often played it up longer than necessary to see where it would go and see whether the root of the hatred would come up. It usually eventually did.
One big part of the problem is that making exceptions for government intrusion or personal initiation of force is that once you let that camel get his nose under the tent, you can't stop it from lifting his head and removing your protection completely. You only deserve the liberty you respect in others- even those you despise.
Once you stop reasoning with regards to someone, your enemies can move you just a bit further toward their position. They make it OK to hate someone for their own purposes. "Liberty doesn't deal with this issue- let us take care of it for you." Or, the non-governmental way to say this is "Well, this really offends me, so I'll say this is an initiation of force, or a credible imminent threat to initiate force, and I'll use 'defensive' force against this person. It's OK. Really."
In either case, there is a danger of "mission creep". Actually, let me re-phrase that- there is probably a guarantee of "mission creep". More things will either "need" government "help" or will be called "aggression", so the justifications will get easier. It's not just a slippery slope; it's one you willingly ran toward and jumped down. And, bit by bit, your liberty is destroyed.
.
Monday, November 12, 2012
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.
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.
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!
.
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!
.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
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.
.
Friday, November 09, 2012
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.
.
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.
.
Thursday, November 08, 2012
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.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
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.
.
(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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Monday, November 05, 2012
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:)
Sunday, November 04, 2012
"Doc's Plan"
This is an idea that I have seen promoted. I post it here- edited only for language:
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.
.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)