"I never thought..."

"I never thought, in all my life, that..."

And that's the problem.  Too many people don't think.  They don't plan ahead.  They always think "it can't happen to me, not here, not today".

But it can, and it does.  To countless people every day.  It doesn't mean you need to live your life in fear.  Just be aware.  Observe.  Be ready for whatever might come your way, as much as you can.

And, remember, there is nothing magical about your life.  Special, yes.  Magical, no.

"It" can happen to you.  Pay attention and see "it" before it's too late.

.

Sometimes, statists are just...

... well, decide for yourself.

A while back on facebook, an apparently "liberal" acquaintance from long ago had posted a link about some racist redneck preacher (my words, not his), who hates Obama because of his "race".  Yes, he does- no denying it.  But that doesn't mean all opposition to the Droner in Chief is racist in nature.

I replied "At least I'm consistent. My opposition to Obama is based on the exact same things my opposition to Bush the Decider (and all those puppeticians before him) was based on."

He responded, jokingly- I think- that I was opposed to just about everything.

So, I responded "Hardly. I'm only opposed to those who are opposed to liberty. Pretty much everyone and everything else- as long as you don't attack people or steal from them, enjoy yourself."

Then someone else piped up and told me "We call people like you agginneers. You are against everything. Now before you go off on me. I am only kidding."

OK.  Kidding.  That's fine, but it is hardly accurate, and jokes need to be based in reality to be humorous.

I replied: "I'm actually 'against' almost nothing. Nothing but theft and aggression, anyway."

I was then told that "Being opposed is the same as being against. You listed several things you are opposed to earlier."

Confused, since I don't deny being opposed to or against coercion and theft, I asked: "'Several things'? What are they? Besides aggression and theft, I mean.
Politics is based solely upon aggression and theft. It is using the coercive force of government to force others to do what you want. That is why the "economic method" of dealing with others is based upon voluntary agreements- if you don't wish to participate you can walk away. This way there are no losers, and usually both people win. The "political method" of dealing with others is where if you and someone else can't reach an agreement, one of you pulls out a gun (by proxy in most cases, by calling for government intervention) to force the other person to do what you want against his will. This way has a winner and a loser, every time.
I just make no exceptions for theft and aggression done under the guise of 'government'.
I hope that clear it up a little- I wouldn't want you to misinterpret what I am saying, or think badly of me. At least, not for the wrong reasons."

I then linked to "The Philosophy of Liberty" video and explained that it might do a better job of illustrating what I was talking about.

Then, I got a very typical statist brush off: "Not a big deal to me. Everyone is entitled to their own things to be opposed (against) to. Have a nice night!!"

Yeah, I suppose.  And I'm "opposed (against) to" cancer, too.  What thinking and ethical person wouldn't be?

Not all viewpoints are valid.

It reminds me of the person who threw a temper tantrum a few times because my refusal to be controlled amounted, in her eyes, to me controlling what she did.  Nope.  Sorry.  Not gonna buy it.

.

.

Clueless about money

There are clueless people out there.  I try to not be one of them.

I saw this question about buying silver: "But who are we going to sell back to when we need money someday?"

Seriously?  Silver IS money.  The "money" the person refers to is fake.  It is only money because people believe it is.  Don't trade your money for Federal Reserve Notes unless you find someone who prefers fake money.  And, in that case, someone more intelligent will always be happy to trade you so that you can pay the economically ignorant person.  At least until "dollars" are no longer an option, in which case the FRN-preferrer is gonna be out of luck.

.

More laws will not save any lives

More laws will not save any lives 

(My Clovis News Journal column for January, 11, 2013)

In the weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre, the standard reactions that always follow such a tragedy cropped up everywhere, with a new emphasis on the specter of "mental illness". Surprise! Mentally ill people are responsible for mass-murders.

What can be done about that?

Even more "taxes" to force us to pay to treat more people? If nationalized health care is bad, and it is, how can more be good? Nothing is free, politicians' claims to the contrary. Do you sentence someone to life in a cage or a "hospital" when they haven't hurt anyone, just on the fear they might someday do something? Should everyone who is depressed or upset be caged until they appear to be happy?

There is no guarantee that something would happen. Do you steal a life in trade for a life?

Who is to be held responsible when a person slips through the cracks and commits murder?

What about people who are just evil? Some of them function quite well, and pass notice. Or get elected.

People who do not have a history of mental illness can suddenly snap. How do you predict or prevent this?

Some blame parents, but serious mental problems are typically due to brain chemistry. The drugs given to kids and teens for many comparatively minor problems (ADHD, "depression") seem to precipitate these kinds of horrendous acts, and trigger suicides. That doesn't take responsibility away from the murderers at all, however, there is a very clear correlation, and that may indicate causation.

Some mentally ill people will always slip through the cracks. The only effective way to stop their rampages is to make sure that they will NEVER have a disarmed pool of innocent targets available. No one, other than the people who were already there just going about their lives when Evil strikes, can always in the right place to make a difference at the right time. You are always your own "first responder".

My heart breaks for those innocent children, their teachers and administrators, all the families who will have an un-fillable hole in their lives from now on, and for the survivors who were there, and rendered helpless by "law". I can't imagine the thoughts of "if, only..." they must be having.

More socialism, more coercive "laws", and knee-jerk "someone has to do SOMETHING!" responses will not save one innocent life.

Armed self defense, and respecting that fundamental human right, will. I'll keep supporting the solution rather than ensuring the safety of those monsters who are determined to become famous by mass murder.


.

"Moral"? "Compassionate"?

It isn't "moral" to use government coercion to make people act like you think they should act.

It isn't "compassionate" to use government coercion to force people to "help" other people.

It is neither "moral" nor "compassionate" to use government coercion to protect you from things that scare you, such as guns or immigrants.

I get really tired of "conservatives" and "liberals" who can't grasp these simple, yet true, facts.  I get tired of being subjected to the broken record of "moral" or "compassionate" people who are in reality neither one.

If you are too dumb to see that your support of this or that "law" is destroying individual lives in order to make you feel better, then I hope someone with more patience than me can get through to you someday soon, before you poke your own eye out with a colon polyp.


.

It's not me, it's you.

If everyone around you is an idiot, or is always "out to get you", that may be a hint that "they" might not be the real problem.

If "you" are a country, and you are always at war with someone somewhere for some reason, that might be a clue that the problem isn't all the other countries, but You.


.

"From my cold dead hands?" Ha!

"You can have my guns when you ...." Wait.  No you can't.

You never have my permission to have them.  I would rather my guns go to a drug lord or an inner city gang member after my death than to any government agent.

If you steal them "under color of law" you are a thief and you took them without consent.

If you kill me in the process of stealing them, you are a murderer and my dead silence is not consent.

If you threaten and torture me or my family until you get me to hand them over under duress then you are an aggressor and you deserve the aggressor's fate: death.  And in that case I will spend the rest of my life ensuring that your earned fate finds you.

It doesn't matter if there is a "law" saying you have authority to steal my guns.  It doesn't matter if you wear a badge or have a title or hold a "high" office.  You can never "have" them.  Not even if you somehow end up possessing them.


.

The "gateway drug" of "gun rights"

Gun rights are a primary gateway drug for liberty.  For some people religion fills that role.  Or something else.  Everyone has their hot button.

For me, it was a combination of gun rights, property rights, and love for the environment.

But, back to gun rights.  What I see happen frequently is that (intelligent) people who are passionate about gun rights come to see that it depends on all the other rights.  Liberty can't be dissected.

The biggest dangers to gun rights have been the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and The War on a Scary Emotion... I mean "Terror".

What people see is that supporting these nonsensical violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only whittles away on the liberty to own and to carry weapons, including ANY weapon owned (or deployed) by any employee of The State.  (Yes, I mean "nukes" as well.  If you shouldn't have one in your garage, then the US Government shouldn't have any either.  And, if everyone had to pay for their own nukes out of their own pockets, I doubt you'd see anyone having them anyway.  End tangent.)

Concern for the fundamental human right to own and to carry weapons- and particularly the collectivist drive to demonize that right- serves to wake up a lot of people.  "If government extremists are wrong on this, what else might they be wrong about?"  And thinking people will then look into that question and discover that the government extremists are wrong about everything.  They'll be addicted to liberty from that moment on.

.

Chris Dorner

Strange, but really... I feel nothing.  While I feel sorry for any innocent people who are being harmed, everyone knows the score.

We already know cops are a public nuisance under the best of circumstances, and a lethal danger under the worst.  So, I'm neither surprised by Dorner, nor by the LAPD's dangerous, overwrought response.

For all the good people out there- stay out of the way and assume any cop you see will shoot you to enhance "officer safety".  And remember that just because you look nothing like him, and you are driving a vehicle that is nothing like his, it doesn't guarantee anything.  Someone poked the hive and the hornets are blind with rage and have completely lost any semblance of a mind they may once have had.

Let's just watch this thing play out and try to come out alive on the other side.  And, with that goal in mind, remember who is targeting random individuals rather than specific corrupt targets.


.

Liberty Lines 2-7-2013

(Published in the State Line Tribune, Feb 7, 2013)

I have really been enjoying the articles on nullification that Will Anderson has done such a fine job on.  Nullification is an issue dear to my heart- not just nullification on a state by state basis, but down to the individual nullifying "laws" that he or she knows are wrong (which is most of them).

There is a one-thousand year-old right and duty of jurors to refuse to convict people who are charged under "laws" that the juror believes are overreaching their authority, no matter what the judge may instruct them to do.  Judges used to inform people of this duty- now they generally hide it.  Look up "jury nullification" or check out fija.org for more information.

I am not as optimistic about the chances of a state government doing the right thing, so I don't hold out much hope for Texas or New Mexico nullifying unconstitutional anti-gun "laws".  After all, they have been enthusiastically enforcing these anti-constitutional edicts regulating guns for the federal government since 1934.  Plus they have dreamed up plenty of their own- such as the Texas prohibition on "open carry"- that even the feds haven't yet managed to impose.

The Bill of Rights says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" (that means to own and to carry guns, swords, and Bowie knives) "shall not be infringed".  That means every single anti-gun "law" that has been enforced since 1934, and especially since 1968, is unconstitutional, illegal, and null and void.  It means that anyone enforcing even the most "reasonable" anti-gun "law" is a criminal.  It means there is no authority to issue permits, do background checks, or to ever arrest anyone on "weapons charges".

Don't try to excuse anti-liberty positions by quoting the part about a "well-regulated militia", either.  It doesn't mean what the "gun control" advocates want it to mean- "well-regulated" means "fine-tuned" and well-practiced, and the militia is everyone capable of handling a weapon in defense of self, territory, life, and liberty.  That is YOU.

The power of nullification lies in each of us.  It's time we start using it again.

.

Equivalencies, right and wrong

Here some equivalencies that a lot of people don't quite understand.

• Government = mafia
• "Patriots" = neighborhood residents that support the mafia and its acts
• Military = mafia "protection"
• Sniper = hitman
• "Taxes" = protection money
• Drones = UniBomber parcels
• Land mines/IEDs = "Shotgun tied to the doorknob" booby trap
• "Collateral damage" = murder
• War = gangland fight for control that kills and destroys the innocent

And here are some of the reasons statists can't understand liberty.  They seem to be confused and believe:

• "Freedom"/"Liberty" = permission to do what we allow you to do
• "Hero" = "someone who did something we like- don't tell us the truth!"
• "America"/"USA" = "Always right, never wrong, God's favorite, the only nation that matters- kill everyone else if they don't swear allegiance or anyone who looks at a US flag sideways!"
• "Constitution" = The document that is Holy, and that makes it legal to kick "liberals" out of America, unless it doesn't authorize the feds to do something we want them to do, then... well, "It really does, but you just don't understand it like we do."

.

Town Bully

Suppose there was a bully in your town.  You knew he constantly assaulted people and stole from them.  You had even witnessed it yourself on several occasions.  Maybe you had even fallen victim to him a time or two.

But, then one day your kid fell down a well, and Bully helped you get her out.

Is that any reason to decide that Town Bully should become an honored role?

Because that is exactly what cops are.

Thinking of police as "necessary" is just as ridiculous as supporting the institution of Town Bully.

When real problems occur normal people can always handle it- because cops have no superpowers.  Their only "power" is an artificial one propped up by counterfeit "laws" that only hobble you by prohibiting you from doing the normal things humans have always done to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for yourself and the people around you.

Cops are not "above" you; you have been "legally" enslaved to make it appear that cops are elevated.  Pushing everyone down to give cops "stature" makes society much worse off.

It's silly beyond words.

.

State should stay out of parenting

State should stay out of parenting

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 4, 2013)

Should parents have the final say in raising a child? How can you protect children without violating their rights, or the rights of their parents?

Everyone who isn't mentally or emotionally damaged wants to protect innocent children, but how far can you go to protect them?

I think parents do have the last word and the ultimate responsibility in raising their children- and I don't use the word "their" as an indication of ownership, but of relationship. Slavery is wrong and children are not the property of their parents. That also means children are not anyone else's property, either, nor do they "belong to society".

But what should you do if you know of mentally challenged parents who leave a baby home alone while running errands? Or what if parents high on crack cocaine share some with their 6-year-old? What about parents in a cult who give their children to a charismatic leader for his twisted purposes? How about parents who give their children too much access to junk food or television before they are mature enough to know what's best for them?

What is your responsibility if you know of these things happening, and you think the parents are endangering the kids?

In cases of imminent physical harm you can intervene; just as you could if you see a person getting mugged. As in the case of a mugging, you are then responsible for your actions and any consequences which come from them, even if you believe those consequences are not fair. Intervention doesn't necessarily mean using force, but could mean offering a helping hand.

What constitutes abuse in your opinion may not to others, and you may do things which horrify someone else. For example, I think it is critical to familiarize young children with guns and the safe handling thereof to prevent tragedies later; just like water safety doesn't happen by keeping children ignorant of swimming. Yet, some consider it abusive to let kids be in the same house with a gun. Do you really want anyone to have the power to step in and forcibly take over your child's life because they disagree with how you live?

If you think a situation is critical enough to take action, be responsible enough to do it yourself and personally accept the consequences. The greatest danger to families comes from having a government employee act on your behalf. They are rarely held accountable for their mistakes and the lives they ruin. Plus, they are paid out of "taxes" which are collected through coercion. You can't do the right thing in the wrong way.

.

Hooray for our side!

A while back on War on Guns, David Codrea was commenting about an anti-liberty bigot and pointed out that the guy's city council profile listed his favorite book as "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

David characterized the book as claiming that "...Western Civilization is just a fluke and we all lucked out,..."  He then went on to offer this alternative explanation "...the first people to apply the scientific method on any kind of consistent and large scale reached the path to advancement first."

I recently finished reading the book and didn't get that from it.

What the book's author seemed to me to be saying was that humans are all the same species.  We basically all have the same potential (but there are individual differences in intelligence and personality traits), at least averaged over the population.  But, location and circumstances matter.

"Western Civilization" wasn't a fluke- it was the natural consequence of certain natural conditions. It doesn't matter where it happened to begin, or who it began with.  At least, not to me.  I don't get the objection to that.

I would be living a very different life had I been born in the Australian Outback, without electricity or abundant food and water, rather than in the "American Outback" where those things are currently common.  I can't begin to pretend that there is some property of "me" that would have the same skills and use the same technology and have the same opportunities no matter where I happened to be born and grow.

Because a population of humans did "luck out" and live in an area where food production could be made less time-consuming, their time was freed so that they could learn to apply the scientific method instead of spending their time worrying about where the next meal would come from- if it came at all.

So, while it may have been "lucky" that some humans were from an area where there were abundant domesticable plants and animals, and those domesticates were able to spread over a wide geographic area due to the orientation of the continent, that isn't a judgement on anyone else.  I can't even claim it is "better" to be technologically advanced.  I like it, but that's just me.

I would have just as much value as a person if I lived in a cave and wore animal skins.  I might even be just as happy, although probably not as comfortable.

Opportunities matter a lot.  Even though I am not convinced that agriculture was a good thing in the long run, saddling humans as it did with a professional class of thugs and thieves who enjoy a (temporary) veil of legitimacy.


.

Surprising allies

A while back I had a somewhat pleasant surprise.  My daughter's kindergarten teacher (curses be upon government schools) had a lengthy letter to the editor published in the local weekly newspaper (reproduced below).  It was surprisingly anti-government.

I can't really say it was pro-liberty since she didn't do much besides point out the destructive nature of The State's edicts concerning education and the effects those edicts have on family time. But that's a start.

She came at it from the religious perspective rather than from a pro-liberty stance, but it led to the same place: these government rules are harmful to individuals.  That we can agree on.

I gave her a copy of one of my books; perhaps it will make an impact.

Now, to get her to talk about that repulsive ritual they engage in each day.

_

Sniper Chris Kyle: Live by the sword...

...Die by the sword.

A murderous parasitic puppet of The State, who enjoyed murdering people and profited from his offenses, has paid the piper.  Unfortunately, others were also also destroyed simply by associating with him too closely.  That is the tragedy.  The lesson is to shun murderers.

And I notice his death shines a light on the "liberty" movement that exposes a huge rift.

Those who love liberty, yet find it comforting to worship liberty's greatest enemy- the government's military- are upset that those who don't maintain that particular inconsistency are not mourning the death of Kyle.

What this supposed "man" did was wrong on every level.  He was an invader, murdering legitimate defenders in defense of his "brother" invaders.  He wasn't "fighting for freedom"- not for you and not for me.  He was only fighting to advance the goals of an illegitimate Empire on the other side of the planet.  He was an enemy of liberty and ALL that is decent.  He was not "brave".  He deserved no thanks or admiration. He was a compliant and enthusiastic hired murderer.

I'm sorry if you are a military worshiper who is uncomfortable with the truth, but the truth is if Kyle were fighting for freedom, he would have turned his skills against the real threats to America, almost all of whom operate out of Washington DC or other "capitols", and governmental buildings all across America.

Without its armed goons- military and police- to carry out its wishes and edicts, government would be as dangerous as a 2 year-old throwing a temper tantrum.  It is those willing to carry out the tantrum that cause the tyranny.

Good riddance, Chris Kyle.  One less monster in the world.

-

PS:  Someone was telling me there is something about this death that makes him very sad.

I responded:

Would I have shot Kyle at that moment? No. At that particular moment he wasn't doing anything that deserved being shot. That time was back when he was murdering defenders from himself and his fellow invaders.

However, he reaped the seeds he had sown. He was trying to help a fellow broken soldier, broken by the system he supported and was part of, who just happened to snap and result in his death. None of it would have ever happened had he stayed home and gotten an honest job. Sure, he might have died for some other reason by now, but this death is directly traceable to the life he had led up to that moment.

Several years ago a fellow libertarian cut off contact with me because I was glad Ted Kennedy was dying. I just thought of all the potential harm that was prevented by his death, and I couldn't feel bad.

I saw someone this morning saying that the "rule of civilized people" is that "you don't talk bad about the deceased". Really? I haven't noticed that rule being followed over the deaths of Bin Laden, Hitler, Mao, Timothy McVeigh, Stalin, or anyone else that the "majority" says it is OK to speak ill of.

PSS: It keeps bringing them out of the woodwork.  I'll have more to say about those who honor a "person" for following orders.
.

"A well-regulated militia..."

Wow, I get so tired of reading comments by anti-liberty bigots (and other idiots) who grasp at the words "A well-regulated militia" as their excuse to criminalize tools of self defense.

It has been explained- I'm guessing- thousands of times.  They don't understand because understanding doesn't fit their agenda.

But, I'll explain again so that there will be yet another place to read it.

"Well regulated" doesn't mean what anti-liberty bigots want it to mean.  It means "fine-tuned".  "Practiced".

And, of course, "militia" meant all males between the ages of... well, that doesn't matter since I hope America is past the ageism and sexism of the past.  Now, the militia is EVERYONE capable (not necessarily enthusiastic about) holding a gun and using it in defense.  It is NOT the "National Guard", or the Marines.  It is YOU and ME.

So, get out there and fine-tune your skills, because YOU are the one the Second Amendment is talking about being well-practiced in the skill of tyrant shooting.

And, it doesn't matter at all whether the Second Amendment gets repealed or legislated away (which happened way back in 1934)- the right to own and to carry defensive weaponry existed long before the first government was dreamed up by the first control-crazy pervert, and it can not be abolished by any State, ever.  Not now, and not in the distant future.  Suck it, anti-liberty bigots.

.

Libertarianarchist

Libertarianarchist.  That's me.  But it is also redundant since an anarchist is just a libertarian with all the inconsistencies stripped away.  A libertarian in full bloom.

The "libertarians" who dispute that always have a big "but".  They are libertarian, but... there is some "service" The State provides- through coercion and theft- that they just don't believe can be provided voluntarily.  Maybe "justice"/"courts", or "copyright", or roads, or "security" or "national defense".  But there's always something.

Get rid of that "something" by realizing that if it needs to be provided, there is always a better way than by allowing a government monopoly to provide it through theft and coercion.  And get over your fear of the word "anarchy".

You'll be happier in the long run.

.

This ain't your father's AK-47 (re-run)

(With all the recent hysteria over "assault weapons", I figured it was time to dust off this old post from August 10, 2009.)

My most recent crazy idea can be found in a letter to The Libertarian Enterprise. After reading the short description, browse around for a while. You will learn something.

Briefly, my idea is for a flintlock "AK-47". Would it be better to have a REAL, fully functional, AK-47? Of course it would. The psychological value alone is quite high, since few other guns upset the hoplophobes as much. There is no logic to their reaction, of course, but it can be fun to watch.

Still, if you live in one of those freedom-destroying cities and don't wish to break even counterfeit "laws", this could be a fun option for you. A way of flipping the authoriturds your "digitus impudicus". I'm sure that the localities which try to forbid toy guns would frown on a flintlock of any kind as well, as the recent incident in Bloomberg's own private prison demonstrates. Find your freedom where you can and, as long as you don't harm the innocent, have fun with it.

.

Striking at the Root or re-painting leaves?

Protest proposed anti-gun "laws"?

Get out and vote?

Write your congresscritter?

Sorry, I can't get too worked up for all that.  I don't buy into the idea that gun owners who don't speak out are "doing nothing".

Sometimes people just realize that political action is equivalent to trying to use a trash can lid to hold back a landslide.  I'll spend my energy doing things that might work.

It's always going to be something- you'll spend your life in a dither trying to put out each brushfire of tyranny if you keep seeking a political "solution".  The State- government- is illegitimate.  That is NO WAY to deal with other people.  Accept it and move on to more productive pursuits.

Unless you just happen to enjoy the frenzy of reactive political action- and some people do.  In that case, do whatever makes you happy, but don't pretend your path is the Only Way.


.

The Assumption of Aggression

It is very hard for most people to think of a way to consider methods of interacting with others that don't involve using The State in some way.

Think of "liberals" and you think of the "laws" they impose on the rest of us.

Think of "conservatives" and you think of the "laws" they impose of the rest of us.

Think of "libertarians" and most people think of the "laws" that the Libertarian Party members want to get rid of or change, through political activism.

Think of "anarchists" and most people think instead of communists who want to use The State to impose their desires on everyone else.

Few people think of people interacting as individuals on their own, without using The State.  So, for the people who have their preference but don't seek to use coercion or theft, the round holes of assumed "political action" are a non-fit from the beginning.

.

Euphemisms don’t change ethics

Euphemisms don’t change ethics 

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

Following libertarian principles is inseparable from being a decent human being.

Even kindergartners are taught the libertarian principles: don't start a fight by throwing the first punch and don't take other people's stuff. It really is that simple.

It's only as kids get older that most adults start trying to make children accept exceptions to these rules. It is a glaring inconsistency that most children can see right through, while their parents try to wiggle around finding justifications that just aren't there.

Rules are often made up to try to short-circuit a child's understanding. They are told that they can't fight back to defend themselves when someone violates the rules and hits them first. Or, they are taught that they aren't really the one starting the fight if someone has offended them in some way. They are told that stealing is OK as long as it is done with majority approval, as part of your job, or if it is called "sharing" even though it isn't voluntary.

You can't raise ethical kids by condoning this kind of behavior and confusing the issues.

Yet you can even be non-libertarian in your personal beliefs and still behave in an outwardly decent manner by following libertarian principles.

Whether a person is conservative or liberal, as long as they don't steal or use coercion and attack the innocent, we can get along. For that matter, I even have no problem with people choosing to live in a communist enclave, as long as all participants are there by unanimous consent, no one is coerced into participating, and anyone can opt out any time they wish. The first time a person is coerced to give up their self-ownership without their consent, and without it being necessary to fulfill a voluntarily-acquired debt or to pay restitution, the consent is gone. Theft or coercion has then occurred.

The problem is that non-libertarians try to change the names of theft and coercion to hide the true nature of the acts. Theft becomes "taxation", "property codes", "asset forfeiture", or "eminent domain", while attacking the innocent becomes "sobriety checkpoints", "immigration control", "gun control", and "homeland security". The euphemisms change nothing about the ethics of the acts.

I hope that the new year brings you in contact with lots of people who relate to you as if they are libertarians. I hope, too, that you will try to return the favor. Happy New Year!

.

Do origins matter?

I really despise the "Pledge of Allegiance".  I know too much about its origin to respect it at all.

I know this puts me in a suspected minority.

But it makes me consider an idea.  How much does the origin of something matter?  Something that had a bad origin can turn out to be good and something that had a good origin can turn out to be bad.  Just look around you to see the truth of this.

In the case of the hated "Pledge", it can be judged by its fruits today: nationalism, war-mongering, blind devotion. and obedience.  All disgusting, rotten, poisonous fruits.

But, just because it was created by a nationalist/socialist doesn't automatically make it bad- judge it for yourself by how it is used today.  If you still think it is a good thing... well, give yourself to any ideology you want, but leave me out of it.

"Media and Politicians Firing Blanks"

Media and Politicians Firing Blanks

by Brian Wilson

Have you ever fired a gun? (NB: water, cap, BB, paintball and fingers
are not acceptable)

How many guns have you seen become violent? If your answer acknowledges
an individual is necessary to operate the weapon, why, then, are you
using the term "gun violence" and not "human violence"?

In 25 words or less: What is an "Assault Weapon"? Be specific

(Extra Credit: From Columbine to Newtown, how many involved "Assault
Weapons"?)

What is the difference between a "magazine" and a "clip"? Use both in a
sentence.

Is a .223 cartridge more or less powerful than the predominant rifle
cartridge used by American fighting men in WWII?

(Extra Credit: What was the caliber of the predominant rifle
cartridge used in WWII?)

If you had to choose, would you prefer to shot with a .22? .223? 30-06?
00Buck?

("None of the Above" is an understandable but unacceptable answer)

Why is a black gun more dangerous than one made with differently colored
components?

If black guns are bad, isn’t that racist?

How does a bayonet lug make the "assault rifle" more lethal?

(Extra credit: How many drive-by bayonetings occurred in the US last
year?)

To the nearest 100,000, how many Assault Rifles are made of Nerf?

Within 10,000, how many times a day do law-abiding gun owners prevent a
crime without firing a shot?

Approximately how many gun laws (State and Federal) are in force in
America today?

With so many laws already in force, what are the compelling reasons to
believe criminals and mass murders will obey the new ones?

If faced with a home invasion, would you want to be holding your phone
or your firearm?

The above was forwarded to me by MamaLiberty

I have a couple of questions of my own to ask anti-liberty bigots:

Are you completely insane?

Are you totally ignorant of human nature, history, ethics, physics, and the difference between right and wrong?

.

The silliness of "borders"

Borders.  Imaginary lines.  I can understand them to a certain extent.  Private property lines are the borders that trump all others.  And I can even understand a "border" that gives an area an identity.  Maybe based upon geography or customs or other things like that which give a shared identity that the locals rally around.  As long as they are not imposed or maintained by "law".

What I don't understand are "legal borders".  I mean the kind that derive from governments saying  "We have these laws over here, and they have those laws over there.  Our laws are better than theirs." That includes saying that "You live here, so we are entitled to a percentage of your money."  And, really, that's all "national borders"- and even "state borders"- come down to.  "Our laws are better than their laws" and posturing to be the "legitimate" thief.

To say "Here, possession of this plant/gun/car window makes you a criminal, even if over there it doesn't" is evil.  For that matter, passing or enforcing any "law" that attempts to control or prohibit anything beyond aggression or taking/damaging property (which may include trespassing) is evil.  So, arguing over borders is just two thugs arguing over which one is violating you in "just the right way".

And the short answer to that is: neither one.

Since I don't believe in "laws" that go beyond (or violate) the Zero Aggression Principle and "don't steal/damage other people's property" (which never need to be written down anyway), the rest of the "laws" are all bad.  To pretend your counterfeit "laws" are better than anyone else's counterfeit "laws" is ridiculous.

It's not about "open borders".  It's about the ridiculous notion that a line dividing between different bundles of "laws" is anything other than a delusion based upon elevating theft and aggression to a place of honor.


.

I need more exciting dreams

Sometimes I have odd dreams.

Recently I dreamed I was watching an in-depth video presenting the best arguments for conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, and pure anarchism.

Each position was laid out by the best proponent of each philosophy.  No, I didn't dream who each of those people might be.

The video ended with sci-fi movies showcasing libertarianism/anarchism.  I guess in my dream, the conclusion was a foregone conclusion as to which philosophy was going to be discovered to be the best.


.

Imaginary lines

A family member was complaining about an arbitrary rule that resulted in an inconvenience because we happen to live on the losing side of a state line- everything we need generally lies on the other side, and because that is a different state, some things are off-limits to us and we have to go miles out of our way to something "in state".  In this case it was a dog rescue group that wouldn't take in a starving dog that was rescued because "we don't take them from out of state".

My family member was griping that it was all "because of that imaginary line".

I agree.  The thing is, she's perfectly fine with other imaginary lines.  Why does the imaginary line between "Texas" and "New Mexico" on a map bother her, while the imaginary lines between "The USA" and "Mexico" or "Canada" are fine with her?  (I'm kidding- I doubt she cares about the imaginary line that says where Canada begins.)

.

Strikers

Would the person who emailed me about hand-forged strikers please email again.  It went to my "junk" box and I saw it just as I emptied the box- and it was too late and I can't get it back.

Sorry about that, and I hope you get this message.

.

"Traffic stops" are the key

It's all well and good to have a plan and know how to defeat Stormtroopers and reavers who show up in masks and body armor at your house at 3AM, to kidnap or murder you and your family- after shooting Rex and stomping Fluffy for the sacred cause of Officer Safety, of course.

However, the reality is that most of the kidnappings will be done as the result of a "traffic stop".  This is where they have gotten more people accustomed to forced encounters with agents of The State.  And most people are trained and frightened into being compliant and cooperative.  That is going to have to end if liberty is to ever return to the former America.

I'm sorry to be the one to have to break the news to you, if you haven't already realized it on your own.  But it has come to this.

So, think about it and plan accordingly.


.

Go back in time- Kill Hitler

I love time travel stories, particularly tales of travel into the past and thoughts of "What would I do if I could go back in time?  What would I try to change?"

There are lots of events in my own past I'd be tempted to change.

Beyond the personal, there are so many events I would like to witness first-hand to see for myself how badly misinformed I am due to errors of history or willful disinformation.

But one almost universal thought I hear connected to the idea of time travel is the assertion that "If I went back in time I'd kill Hitler."

Regardless of whether they'd smother newborn Hitler or shoot him just before he began to kill the innocents, they seem to be saying that they would, with the wisdom of information about the future, be bold enough to do something that would be seen by most contemporary observers to be an act of evil.  In order to prevent an actual evil that would then (probably) never come to pass.  They might even go down in history as an evil assassin.  Or a baby murderer.

Sadly, by the time that killing Hitler was obviously the right thing to do, his security apparatus made chances of success almost nil.

I wonder what would happen if I could somehow send a message back in time to the 1930s, to people who might encounter Hitler before it was too late.  Back before the tides of history became obvious.  Back when an assassin would have been seen as evil.

Maybe we have dodged that bullet before.  What would people say to the purely hypothetical claim that JFK was just days away from becoming a mass-murdering despot when he was shot?  It seems highly unlikely, but since he was killed and we can't know what he would have done the next day, there could never be any real proof.  A time-traveling assassin could do a lot of good while being judged to be a monster.

What would a time traveler from 50 years in our future do if he showed up tomorrow?  Or, if he couldn't physically return to this point in time, but could send you a message, what might he tell you?  What would you do about it?

Funny thing about today- it will be history soon enough.  You are living in someone's "history" today.  How will our grandchildren and their grandchildren view us?  How do we view the Germans of the 1930s?  I wonder what their ghosts might say to us if they could communicate.


.

Self defense prevents massacres

Self defense prevents massacres

(My Clovis News Journal column for Winter Solstice/The Mayan Apocalypse/December 21, 2012.)

Mass murders.

Who commits them?
Where do they happen?
How can they be prevented?
How can they be stopped when prevention fails?

These seem to be the only reasonable questions to ask in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

Who commits them? People who have mental problems; which have usually been treated with SSRI medications. People who, for various reasons, are already prohibited (illegally and unconstitutionally) from possessing the weapons they use to murder people.

Where do they happen? Almost exclusively in places where people have been told they are not allowed to be armed, and usually where there will be a crowd of distracted people and a bottle-neck to "control" entry.

How can they be prevented? By curing mental illness, or by force or the threat of force.

While seeking cures there needs to be an immediate solution, and there is.

People can be locked up before they start killing, or it can be made impossible for them to kill anyone. Therein lies a problem.

No expert can know who is really a threat. There's also the problem of "who gets to decide what constitutes a 'mental illness?'" Just like "drunk driving", the definition will creep to include anything the "authorities" want it to encompass.

There is also no way, short of killing the person, to make it impossible for them to harm someone. The brain is really the only weapon there is, and as long as it is conscious and able to control the body, it can kill. The tools used to accomplish that perverted goal are interchangeable and irrelevant.

So how about prevention through the threat of force? That works better. By letting these aggressive monsters know that they will not have an easy harvest, they may decide it isn't worth it- not enough infamy to bother. That police will eventually show up doesn't stop them because they know they'll have met their goal by that time. But a universally-armed society? That those they plan on killing will fight back and ruin the scheme removes much incentive.

Which leads to the final question: How can massacres be stopped when prevention fails? By the good violence of self defense. Immediately deployed. From several different sources at once. Sure, most of these monsters plan on dying, but they also plan on murdering a large number before that happens. Foil them. Any other suggestions are just the sounds of sheep bleating, begging the wolf to go away, while standing in the butcher's holding pen.

.

Property theft on grand scales

I saw this top map on Facebook.  I can't verify its accuracy.  I also won't debate whether a particular State is "better" than some other State.  Are they based on "taxation" and coercion?  That's all I need to know.

What that map does make me think of is another map, concerning someone else who was in a place first (and, no, no one was in either of these places in "the beginning", but migrated there at some point) and lost their land/property and freedom to someone else who decided that god had given the land to them, because of their obvious superiority and because they won god's favor.  Or something.

It just doesn't smell right to me, in either case.

Of course, it wouldn't be an issue at all without governments behind it.  People should be free to keep their property, or sell or trade it, to anyone for any reason.  People should also be free to use any means at their disposal to defend their property from those who want to steal it.  Neither of the illustrations show consensual property redistribution, but theft and aggression.  And no one should ever be subject to some government or its "laws" simply because of where they live or because of who outnumbers them.

.

Sheriffs discover nullification

While I suppose I am glad that there are some sheriffs making nullification-type noises concerning proposed anti-gun edicts, I would be more impressed if they realized that the next anti-liberty "laws" are just a continuation of the evil anti-liberty "laws" they enforce every day.  And have been enforcing since they took office.

Mr. Shire Reeve:

If you accept any "federal money", equipment, supplies, or oversight, you are already an oathbreaker.

If you enforce any anti-drug "laws", you are already an oathbreaker.

If you have ever arrested anyone on any "weapons charges", you are already an oathbreaker.

If you allow federal "law enforcement" to operate in your employers' territory in order to commit any of those acts, you are already an oathbreaker.

What's one more violation to you?  Why make a fuss now, when you have been happy to betray your neighbors thus far?  Is it to fool people into believing you have principles?  Is it to cover your... "self"... when your neighbors start picking up pitchforks and lighting torches?  Are you trying to give yourself plausible deniability?

I won't be fooled.  Some of your neighbors probably won't be fooled, either.

You have already chosen your side.  Unless you switch sides, unequivocally, now- and immediately cease and desist your unconstitutional, immoral, and unethical actions this instant.

Past violations can be forgiven.  Future actions will be tallied.

Where will you be standing when the account comes due?

(The other side of the coin: Law enforcers openly admit to being criminals)

.

Unveiling: Money

If the US government can do it, so can I.  After all, no State has rights not held by the individuals who make it up, and no individual has more rights than any other.  And if rights are imaginary, then no one has a right to rule me or coerce me, so...

Here is the one and only 1 Million Money Note in existence.  So far, anyway.

I authorize myself- through my own Constitution- to issue Money in whatever form I see fit (it says so right on the back of the note).

The current exchange rate for a "Money" is 1 Money to $0.75 (in Federal Reserve Notes).  Silver and gold are given preference in exchange, and get better rates, though.

Acceptance is not mandatory, but is purely voluntary.  Laziness on my part, and my inability to issue Money electronically, ensures that Money will never hyperinflate itself in the way US Dollars are guaranteed to do.

But, just like Federal Reserve Notes or US coins, it is only really worth the material, the paper or metal, that makes it up.  Only the belief it is worth more makes it worth more.

.

Law enforcers openly admit to being criminals

"We will uphold whatever laws that are actually enacted."

Then you will be violating your oath of office as well as declaring yourself a domestic enemy.

"Shall not be infringed" doesn't leave any room to wiggle.

And, before you grasp at the "well-regulated militia" part remember that when the words were penned, "well-regulated" meant "well-practiced" and "fine tuned"; not what anti-liberty bigots want it to mean. And the militia is everyone capable of holding and shooting a gun.

There is no room left for your feelings or concerns. The Bill of Rights leaves no room for any anti-gun "laws"- not against "felons" possessing guns; not against semi-automatic or fully automatic guns; not against where the guns may be carried.

The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" anyone any rights- it takes away authority. The only thing the Bill of Rights did was make it a very serious crime for government employees to pass or enforce any "law" dealing with guns in any way. If you don't like that then you need to immediately remove yourself from any position of "authority".

Unfortunately, the sheriffs who have announced they will not be enforcing any further unconstitutional "laws" are lying.  You know it and I know it.  Because they will still be enforcing anti-drug "laws", and taking federal handouts, and assisting federal (and illegal) law enforcement agencies.  And, when push comes to shove, they will roll over and betray their employers to the feds in order to keep their "job".


.

"Too much liberty"?

I wish cops would just leave everyone alone.  Yes, I mean everyone.

Like Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." (1791)  He would have hated, and fought against, the current police state that infests the former America.

I am tired of seeing cops everywhere.  L. Neil Smith once (or probably more) said America has 10 times more police than any civilized country should tolerate.  Well, I'd say the situation is at least an order of magnitude worse now.  But I don't want any police.  Not one.

Let me deal with bad drivers, robbers, rapists, jaywalkers, thieves, murderers, unlicensed pharmacists, drunks, in my own way- without initiating force- IF I FEEL THE "NEED" TO "DEAL WITH THEM" AT ALL!  If you are too weak or too cowardly to deal with them on your own, I might even volunteer to assist you as long as you don't "ask" for my help through some coercive agent.  But I will warn you right now- if they are not attacking anyone, nor stealing, you are on your own because what they are doing is none of my business.  Nor yours.

I have no use for cops, and really, neither do you.  They need to just go away.  Forever.


.

Gun Appreciation Day

Yes, I appreciate guns.  I appreciate the pleasure they have brought into my life.  I love the way they feel and smell.  I enjoy handling them and shooting them.

I appreciate the fact that guns have helped feed hungry people for hundreds of years.

I appreciate the fact that guns have helped good people resist- and kill- tyrants, thieves, thugs, home invaders, drunk husbands, jealous girlfriends, rabid dogs, and various other vermin.

I appreciate the fact that guns have provided countless hours of enjoyment for "plinkers", and target shooters, and Buckskinners, and "Cowboy Action Shooters", and gunsmiths, and movie goers.

Guns have been abused by bad guys.  Bison were indiscriminately slaughtered.  Genocides were carried out.  Helpful signs are damaged (and by "helpful" I am obviously not talking about "stop signs" or "speed limit signs" or any other Nanny State excuses for highway robbery).

I have lost two friends to bad guys with guns.  Another friend was shot by a mugger, but survived.  Would my dead friends have survived if they had been in possession of a gun at the time they were attacked?  I don't know, but they couldn't have been hurt any worse.  I am not stupid enough to blame the tool the bad guys used.  Yes, that is what it requires to blame guns for the bad guys' actions: stupidity on a monumental scale.

I blame bad guys for all they take from life, and I appreciate guns for all the good they bring to life.


.

Gun Appreciation Day- To the NRA:

I have been trying to send the following letter to the NRA, and their "contact form" has managed to prevent the message from being sent.  Very well.

Here it is:

Not ONE MORE INCH! 

If NRA 'compromises' one iota on ANYTHING anti-gun, no matter how pragmatic it may be, I will renounce my life membership and publicize it on my blog, on facebook and twitter, and in my newspaper column. 

No anti-gun 'law' is constitutional- not one.  Not the 1934 NFA, not carry permits, not prohibitions on felons possessing guns.  Stop calling for the reavers of 'law enforcement' to 'enforce the laws already on the books'- you are supposed to be on OUR side; not theirs.  Stop pretending there is any legitimacy to any anti-gun 'law'.   

I am tired of the tsunami of 'compromise' sweeping away liberty and making 'criminals' out of decent people. 

I am tired of NRA supporting anti-gun puppeticians who are in 'useful positions', and ignoring candidates who are actually pro-gun, just because they might not win.  Washington DC, and its lesser, more local partners in tyranny need to be warned that gun owners will not obey one more 'law', and any attempt to inflict another 'law' on us will result in more of us seeing the stupidity of obeying the counterfeit 'laws' we have obeyed up to this point.   

If the penalty for owning a semi-auto is just as draconian as the penalty for owning a full-auto, why settle for the lesser weapon? 

Rights don't come from government or a constitution.  Rights can be respected or violated.  Period.  I am tired of seeing them violated with NRA's 'compromising' consent.

.

My "NRA" tag

I don't know if you have noticed, but I "tag" most of my pro-gun posts with my NRA tag.

Not because I think the NRA is pro-gun, but because I enjoy ridiculing their anti-liberty stance by demonstrating how real pro-gun looks.


.

Be ready. Be vigilant.

Keep a close watch for the next couple of weeks.  Be observant beyond your normal level.  Stay as alert as you can manage- and push the awareness envelope.

Because, I hate to suggest it, but judging by the past I suspect America is ripe for another mass shooting- they always seem to happen when the feds and their slimy familiars are seeking support for new anti-gun "laws".  Not saying that these events are "triggered" or called into action, but...

You might be the person to stop it before it happens.

Sure, that will not be reported by the "mainstream" media, but that's OK.  You are not looking for fame anyway, but looking to live by the Zero Aggression Principle.  Right?

Don't depend on someone else carrying your load for you.  Be ready.  Be vigilant.  "Don't leave home without it."  The war is here- denying it won't make the truth go away.

You watch my back- I'll watch yours.

And, thank you in advance.


.

Blame not the tyrant, blame the people who obey him

I haven't got a clue what anti-liberty "executive orders" Obama has proclaimed concerning guns.  I'm sure I will find out what most of them are in the coming days.  However, I could not possibly care less what he thinks will become "law" just because he declares it so.

Real law is discovered, not created by rulers.

Real law, also called Natural Law, says you have the right to own anything you want, as long as you didn't get it through theft, fraud, force, or threat of force.  Anything.  Any weapon at all.  Yes, even nuclear bombs.

The possession of anything can never be a violation of any real law.  Only initiation of force (or a credible threat to initiate force) and theft violate real law.  If you hurt someone or damage their property it doesn't matter what you use to hurt them- YOU are the guilty one, not your tool.  Anyone who believes otherwise is a superstitious idiot.  Yes, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, and probably just about everyone else who works for the government in some capacity- I am speaking to you.

Obama is violating real law- Natural Law- by pretending he can take your property and/or liberty.  By violating your fundamental liberty to own anything you wish, and to defend your life, liberty, and property in any way you see fit with any tool you wish to use, he has declared war on you.  Just as Bush the Decider did before him by imposing the Patriot Act.  They are no different than a mugger in a dark alley demanding "Your money or your life".

Only people who plan on obeying Obama's anti-liberty proclamations worry about what they might be.  I don't worry about it.  I know he is the sworn enemy of liberty, and as such he has declared that he is my mortal enemy.  This is not news to me.

I will not obey.  Not one more inch.

Molon Labe!

.

And how we'll burn in the camps...

And how we'll burn in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every cop, when he went out at night to make an arrest or man a "checkpoint", had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

Or if, during examples of mass oppression, as for example traveling in "border" states, or entering airports, or when "laws" forbid the tools of self defense, people would not simply sit there too scared to resist, paling with terror at every arbitrary demand and at every flash of the red and blue lights, but would understand they have nothing left to lose and will boldly set up an ambush of half a dozen people with pistols, rifles, machetes, axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else is at hand?... The law enforcement departments would very quickly suffer a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Washington DC's thirst, the cursed State will grind to a halt!

If...if...Most Americans don't love freedom enough. And even more – most have no awareness of the real situation.... They purely and simply deserve everything that happens afterward.  And the truly innocent will be dragged along with the complacent.

With apologies, or sincere thanks, to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.


.

Constitution is ultimate authority

Constitution is ultimate authority

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 14, 2012.  Trying to speak to those who would be on the side of liberty if they can get free of certain obsessions.)

Are you among those torn between feeling you should support the government, and knowing it does wrong? 

Should you "render unto Caesar" anything that he, in his modern incarnation, demands?

Basically, to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's just means don't take, or keep, that which isn't yours. Don't steal. If you have someone else's property, give it back. Does your money automatically belong to the government just because someone passed a law permitting them to take it? Absolutely not. Should you pay for services you use, regardless of who provides them? Yes, you should. Should you be forced to pay for services you neither want nor need? If so, everyone should start sending me a monthly check for picking up litter, and for preaching liberty.

But what about submitting to government simply because it is the government? Do you have an obligation to obey every edict that comes from a government official simply because of his position? No.

In America no person, agency, or office is the governmental authority. The Constitution is. Those who refuse to abide by the letter and intent of that authority have no legitimate power over you. In fact by using coercion and violence on people who are harming no one else, and even against those who are doing "good work", they cause fear in good people and show themselves to be false authorities in violation of the Constitution.

Sure, the Constitution has its own problems, but as long as you choose to play the game, it is your rule book. If you seek political office, the Constitution is not to be "interpreted" to be more convenient for your ambitions. Once you violate any of its provisions, whether by trying to regulate immigration, by passing or enforcing "laws" against gun ownership or possession, or by regulating which substances people may introduce into their own bloodstream, you have lost all authority. No one has any obligation to honor or obey you any longer.

In America the Constitution was written to hobble the government, not to ensnare the people. Any ruling that goes against that higher power is a ruling that goes against the spirit of the Constitution- even if you approve. Those acts erode authority rather than enhancing it.

Every time this happens you can stop submitting, honoring, and complying- with a clear conscience.

If you feel called to support the earthly powers-that-be, don't misguidedly throw your support behind those who are in fact its worst enemy.

.

"The wrong hands"

One thing I hear from almost every "side" in the "gun debate" is this idea that "we" need to keep guns "out of the wrong hands".

Just whose hands are "wrong"?  And who is this "we" who'll be doing the "keep away"?  Government employees?  I laugh at the absurdity of that suggestion.

I suppose "the wrong hands" are those who want to hurt you.  If that's the case, cops and other government employees have the "wrongest" hands of all, along with the thuggish members of freelance gangs.  Don't make a distinction where none exists.

There is no possible way- NONE- to keep guns out of "the wrong hands" without also keeping them out of a lot of the right hands.  Even the "minor" layers of difficulties that any good person could easily pass through tend to dissuade a lot of people from going to the trouble to own or to carry a gun.  It adds expense to the cost of a gun, either in dollars or in time.  Since dollars are nothing but a placeholder for time you traded to someone else, there is no difference.  A lot of good people also don't like being treated like a criminal by a gang of demonstrable criminals- and then told by the brainless criminal drones with FBI computers whether or not they are "worthy" of defensive tools.  It is incredibly insulting.

And bad people will never be inconvenienced in the slightest.  They'll buy or steal what they want- whichever is easiest.

I would prefer to live in a society where guns are freely and openly available, with absolutely zero restrictions on anyone, so that more good people will not feel like criminals for owning and carrying weapons.  Good people outnumber the truly bad ones.  Any additional liberty will empower the good more than the bad (who already do whatever they feel like anyway).

So, if you are truly a pro-liberty person, stop giving any attention to the absurd "wrong hands" nonsense.  It makes you look like an anti-liberty bigot.


.

The Trillion Dollar Coin questions

I keep thinking about the proposed $1 Trillion platinum coin.

If it were lost through government employee stupidity or negligence and I found it, would it be honored for $1 Trillion?  Would I then be a trillionaire?  (Leaving aside the fact that the criminals of The State would claim it was theirs, no matter how negligent they were.)

If it were stolen, could it be spent anywhere?

If the answers to these two questions are "no", then it is not a real trillion dollar coin, but a counterfeit.

.

As dumb as they seem?

Politicians can't really be as dumb as they seem, can they?

I include all the appointed bureaucrats such as all the Secretaries of This and That- and especially Ben Bernanke.  Ignorance must truly be bliss.

But, anyway, either they are all really, really dumb, or they are smart enough to appear to be dumb.  Judging by the actions they take and the things they advocate I have a hard time accepting that premise.

I'll try to not underestimate them if I have to avoid them or deal with them, but it is still pretty hard to accept that they may not be as dumb as they seem.  What amazes me the most is how many people- statists, anyway- don't see it, but instead praise these clowns for their "wisdom".

If that's "wisdom" or "intelligence" I want no part of it.


.

Gay marriage, pedophiles, and libertarians

Recently I was forwarded a comment.  The person who made the comment claims to "lean libertarian", but can't take the final step because "libertarianism says what you do in privacy is of no concern to me" and "what you do in public is permissible as long as it does not constrain my own liberty."  Mostly correct- not only liberty, but also life and property/"pursuit of happiness".

The example that they gave was gay sex and, even more specifically gay marriage.  They were concerned because they felt libertariansism left no room for rebuttal against gay marriage and felt that, if "normalized", it leads to this:  Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light

Other than both being "sexual", I see no connection, but, OK.

He asks "If it happens in private between consenting parties, what argument can full-throated libertarians make against the act? Would they even offer an argument?"

Some offer arguments, but I can only speak for myself.

Here was what I said in reply to the person who forwarded the comment to me:

I read the article and found it very interesting... and then it hit me- the basic difference between me and your friend. He was offended by the information and opinions presented and I was not. I took in the information presented and gave it consideration. He, apparently, couldn't do that, but only saw it as confirmation of his worst fears.

The main case against forbidding gay marriage should be an easy "conservative" fit: how on earth can the claim be made that government should be in the business of licensing private and very personal vows? It isn't that gay marriage should be "allowed", it is that government should never have been allowed to regulate, sanction, or ration marriages in the first place. It's like licensing churches. Or guns. Or cars and travel.

Beyond that, if something is truly consensual (and it needs to be informed consent, without deception) and doesn't harm either of the participants, how can you seriously advocate killing people over it? And that is what any "law" against something leads to. All "laws" are enforced by death. Sure, you can usually avoid that outcome by complying early in the enforcement process, but eventually, if resistance is made, armed government employees will arrive to either "arrest" you or kill you in the attempt. Don't believe me? Find a minor "law" and openly defy it around the government employees who are "responsible" [sic] for enforcing it- and keep refusing to comply each time they escalate their enforcement attempts. Do you think they will shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well..." as they walk away?

His complaint that libertarianism leaves "little room for rebuttal" against gay marriage, because "What happens in the bedroom between consenting adults is of no concern to the true libertarian" seems misguided. Why would anyone want to rebut that? Because it offends them? No one has a right to not be offended. I don't worry that someone might be watching MSNBC or FOX news in the privacy of their own home, even though the thought offends me and I think it can cause wide-ranging problems out in society. Until someone is actually harmed, it just isn't any of my business.

Which gets back to the article he linked to.

If it were shown beyond a reasonable doubt that pedophilia, when engaged in willingly with INFORMED consent, did not harm either participant, neither physically nor psychologically, why use the lethal force of government (which is known, beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause harm to almost everyone) to prevent or stop it? Because it offends "the majority"? Gun ownership seems to offend either "the majority" or a very vocal minority. In itself, gun ownership harms no one. Until the gun is used to coerce or attack an innocent person- one who does not deserve to be harmed right now because they are not attacking or stealing. As long as no one is being harmed and everyone is engaging in consensual acts, you can be offended all you want, but you have no right to use force against them. Nor to delegate someone else to use force that you don't have the authority to delegate. You can't delegate something you don't possess.

I suspect that your conservative friend, if he were honest, would admit that he will never believe any studies that show "no harm from pedophilia". He will continue to "know" it causes harm, no matter what. And, in that, he may be right. I simply don't know.

So, no I wouldn't make an argument against pedophilia, in and of itself- although in the past I would have. No child "belongs" to me, just as I didn't "belong" to anyone when I was a child. Would I try to convince children that I thought it was a bad idea for them to engage in sex? Yes. Would I try to talk a pedophile out of acting on his desires? Absolutely. Just because the thought bothers me personally. Do I think it is somehow worse for a child to engage in sexual activity with an adult than with another child? Not really. And I also recognize that all children engage in some level of sexual experimentation or play. I did. It was completely consensual, it didn't harm me, and I don't regret it. Where would you draw the line between "normal" sex play and "perversion"? Where do you get the authority to draw that line?

And, even if it does cause harm, if there is informed consent with both parties, I wouldn't send The State after them. I would step in, myself. And I would accept any consequences that came from that.

Tattoos and piercings cause visible harm. Damage to the body that you can see with your own eyes. It offends my aesthetic sensibilities to see them, especially when there are "too many" of either (or both). I think that people who get multiples of either don't understand what they are doing to themselves. They invariably disagree with me on that point. I would still do my best to argue a person out of going overboard with them. But I know where the line is. I respect that line even when doing so makes me unhappy. Which is increasingly rare.

This is a taboo subject, and one I address with apprehension. More than any other subject, talking about sex leads to hatred and accusations and drives people away. It is the most emotionally charged subject I have ever found. Which means, I suppose, that it is important to talk about.


.

Worrying about the properties of unicorn poop

Recently I have been able to observe some "liberals/progressives" in their natural habitat.  It has been highly educational and hilarious.

Now, they are not exactly typical "liberals", but it's still funny.

They watch news about the latest goings-on in DC and act like it is actually important.  I guess I just don't get it.  I couldn't possibly care any less who Obama nominates for what post, or what he believes about guns, or what he is advocating as a "solution" [sic] for the economy he has worked so hard to continue destroying.  I already know he is a statist thug- just like Bush the Decider was before him.

The particulars of exactly how Obama and his co-conspirators plan to gang-rape Liberty are less important to me than my plans to defend my individual Liberty from his- or anyone's- aggression.  And those plans aren't any of his business.  I know the attack is coming, and that's really all that matters.

I hope you also know what's coming, and are getting prepared.  I hope you don't waste time pretending that the noises and odors coming from DC (or a more local Mos Eisley) are "the real world".  Or that the Storm Troopers and reavers are anything other than what they are.

And, I hope you can laugh at those who get all excited about what their Rulers proclaim and do.

.

"There are parts I like..."

First, this:

 

I think of this Futurama clip every time I talk to a Constitutionalist.

But they are rarely honest enough to admit "There are parts of the Constitution I like and parts I don't like!".

Because they are almost universally supportive of the War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs, and "immigration control"*, and against "gay marriage" (which means they are for government-regulated marriage).  None of those things are permitted by the Constitution.  If you support or advocate any of those you are against the Constitution when it doesn't allow you to "legally" do things you want to do.  Just like me.

However, I readily admit to not liking most of the Constitution due to the fact it established a State, and that I consider it irrelevant, while acknowledging that a "Constitutional America" would be a huge improvement over what the US is now.

_

*The one part of the Constitution sometimes pointed to as "proof" that it "legalizes" immigration control is actually concerned with the importation of slaves.  Not the same thing at all.

.

Regulations, taxes block progress

Regulations, taxes block progress

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 7, 2012.)


Fraser Institute released its Economic Freedom of North America 2012 report, and New Mexico came in 50th among the American states.

That's bad news, but it's also an incredible and exciting opportunity, because it would be so simple to flip that ranking upside down.

Economic freedom is natural; it requires a lot of effort to stifle it. To destroy economic freedom requires "taxation", regulations, red tape, licenses, and fees. All those things amount to barriers which are erected between an idea and actually providing a product or service to people who might want it. All that would be needed to improve New Mexico's standing is the removal of some of those barriers.

You could even decide how high to lift New Mexico. If a slight improvement is good enough, just remove some of the economic barriers; if you want to rise to the top, get rid of them all. Your choice- the more barriers you insist on removing, the better off we all become.

This doesn't mean there would be no economic risk, or that every new business idea would succeed, but it would make it easier to try new things and allow more of those new things to succeed. The more new things that are tried, the more successes there will be. If you throw one dart, it is unlikely you will hit a bulls-eye, but if you throw a hundred darts, a bulls-eye is almost a sure thing. The state should not be rationing the darts.

Unfortunately, the state and many of its supporters are addicted to their favorite economic barriers.

The "left" wants barriers to ensure the fairy tale of "fairness".

The "right" wants barriers which enforce its notions of "goodness".

Both would be happy to eliminate the other side's favorite barriers, but will fight tooth and claw to hang on to its own barriers. And always propose more. The state is happy to oblige.

So here we are.

Solving this problem means taking power, position, and money away from politicians and bureaucrats. Be assured they will go into fear-monger mode to prevent that from happening. Don't fall for their lies.

America as a whole has slipped further down the index of world economic freedom; now at number eighteen. This is a tragedy that can be solved. New Mexico could lead the way, if we can just be bold enough to do it.

So, which is it? Are you more concerned about imposing barriers against others, or being a shining beacon, even though it means allowing others the same freedom?

.

Keep playing an unfair game

"That's not fair!"

Every time I hear those words I smile because I am reminded of Scott Adams' assertion that "fairness" isn't a feature of reality, but a concept invented so that stupid people could feel like they are participating in conversations.

Maybe that's true; maybe it isn't completely true.

However, "fair" does figure into playing games with agreed-upon rules.  When someone doesn't play by those rules you feel it isn't fair.  You can whine about it, you can keep trying to adapt to the "new" rules, you can "cheat" in your own way and hope to somehow win, or you can walk away.

Some people seem to think of The State as a kind of game.  They realize that the rules seem to only be applied in one direction- against individuals who are not a part of the government gang- but they still believe they should keep playing and try to win.  Or at least not lose.

What I don't get is that so many of those people think whining about the unfairness will change anything.  As long as you keep playing, what incentive is there for any change?  You'll keep playing, keep losing, and The State will keep teasing you with the promise of winning a little bit... someday.

When playing against someone who keeps changing the rules to benefit themselves, you are an idiot to not walk away.

Withdraw consent.


.

Day by Day Cartoon- Time's Up

Thanks to Day by Day:

My little flag design sure does get around!  Awesome!

.

Liberty, in the real world

I like to handle physical objects. Hats. Guns. Skulls.  Whatever.

I enjoy looking at pictures of things I like, but nothing beats having an interesting item in my hands, turning it over, examining every angle, and feeling the weight of it as I turn it over and feel its texture.  Concepts are good, but I want to feel the reality, even if it is gritty.

So it is with liberty.  I can be free in my mind but I want to grasp liberty in my grubby paws and explore every nook and cranny.  I want to see the dirt and stains and scratches.  I don't expect liberty to be shiny and perfect, but to be real.  I want to live it- flaws and all.

And I will despise anyone who tries to prevent me from experiencing that.  And I may need to defend my life, liberty, and property from thugs and parasites who try to take those things from me.

If you fear or hate liberty or those who love it, just get out of the way and leave us alone and there will be no problem.  Get in our way by initiating force or being a thief and you may not like the consequences you bring upon yourself.  We have seriously had enough.


.