Equality... in what?

There are some "imperial entanglements" in my life I have avoided, and others I have gotten dragged (unwillingly) in to.

I don't want everyone to be violated equally- I want everyone to enjoy full liberty.  I also support anyone who manages to keep their own property out of the hands of the thieves, in whatever manner they manage that.

The entanglements I have thus far managed to avoid, I don't want extended to me, and I don't wish for others to be caught up in those I haven't escaped.

If someone wants to beg The State's employees for "recognition", I won't stop them.  But I will suggest that- just perhaps- they aren't seeing the big picture.  Freedom is never enhanced by begging for government permission.

So I posted this status on Facebook:

I support getting The State out of ALL marriages (and the rest of life). Equal interference isn't a very smart goal. Don't beg for leprosy just because your neighbor is infected.

Yet, this position is called "hypocritical" and more by some people.  People who claim "The State" equals "freedom", in at least some areas.

Here is part of what was said:

This 'state out of marriage' thing is just the latest 'argument Du Jour' thing that does not hold water because the proponents of it can't live by the implications of it when they think it through. If really believed, they would be forced to repudiate *all* state recognized contacts, never marry, never own property and never own a license. They don't do that. It's just a convenient way to deny freedoms to others and think they are moral for doing so.
In this, you are no different than a bible thumping conservative. I leave you to your hypocrisy. Have a fine day.

So, without the State, there can be no contracts.  Yes, he actually admitted he believes this earlier in the thread.  And, so, I finally "blocked" him.

Then his sockpuppet sent me a message saying:

Thank you sir! There is no greater compliment than to be blocked by someone who has such a weak position it can't hold up to examination.
You are a fraud and a coward sir. I am just a little happier in the knowledge that I exposed it.
You will reply with some smarmy comment and then block this Nic too. Don't bother - I won't read it. I just keep this account to chuckle at those who are so easily outwitted they have no choice but to flee. Tata sunshine!

I really need to remember that it's only the internet.  I can laugh and walk away at any time.

.

The mall adventure

A couple of days ago I was at the local mall- a very small and slow mall by "mall standards"- so my daughter could see the Easter Wolverine... umm, Bunny.

Anyway, while trying to convince her that the scary costumed critter wouldn't eat her, we were sitting on a bench and this group of people walked by.  I noticed that one had a nice, modern semi-auto pistol on his hip, and was obviously not "law enforcement".  I thought "Good job!" and wanted to thank him, but I was in the middle of an explanation to my traumatized daughter about how most people in Easter Bunny costumes don't want to hurt her, and even if this one wanted to, I wouldn't let it happen.

A few minutes later I noticed an obviously excited- but reservedly so- mall cop pacing around.  I wondered if he had just encountered the armed patron, or if someone had "reported" the guy, but mall cop hadn't been able to find him.  Or, if he was just always one to act testosterone-pumped and the one thing had nothing to do with the other.  Although, I had seen mall cop just a few minutes earlier and he seemed much more relaxed as he sauntered along in a daze at that time.

I watched but never saw "open carry guy" stroll through again.  Too bad because I wanted to shake his hand and give him my card.  I was also willing to say something in his defense if mall cop got out of hand.

I have never noticed any "No guns (unless you plan to massacre)" signs anywhere in the mall, and New Mexico is an "open carry" state.  But it is a rare sight around here, indeed.  I would love for it to become a lot more common.  (Of course, living as I do between two states, and Texas being one of the shameful states on that map, I'd have problems.)

One thing I know is that I feel much more endangered by cops (not the unarmed mall cop) than I do armed residents.  Any mall cop ought to be glad to see armed patrons, since they are most likely on the same side.  Unless mall cop decides to come down on the wrong side, that is.


.

Two wrongs don't make a right

"Two wrongs don't make a right."  True, and forgotten far too often.

However, defending yourself or your property from those who seek to attack or steal is not ever "wrong".  No matter who those attackers are, or what justifications they may grasp at.  It may not be smart- depending on the situation- and you may not be able to do it without "collateral damage" [sic] which is NEVER right (no matter what certain thugs may claim), but defense against a thief or aggressor is not wrong.  It doesn't figure into the "Two wrongs don't make a right" equation at all, but is a separate thing altogether.  Don't let anyone fool you by claiming otherwise.

.

Don't forget yourself

What to DO?  I feel the need to do something "important" for my personal liberty.  I realize that the urge to "do something" is a dangerous thing.  It leads people astray.

I'd do better to focus on my life and the things I can immediately affect, rather than concerning myself with what goons calling themselves "government" are doing to someone over a thousand miles away.

But I can't help caring.  I like people- until certain individuals do things to make me dislike them.  If I didn't like people I wouldn't care if they were being violated- or even if they were destroying their own lives by being the violators.

But, still, if I don't focus on my own life, who will?  I am no one's responsibility but my own. I can't really affect the "laws" that the thugs who call themselves "government" impose- no matter how often I am told I can.  Every time in the distant past I tried, I eventually "lost" and the advocates of "more rules" won.  Yet, those rules only affect my life if I let them.  Sure, I might get kidnapped, robbed, and caged for violating some of the "rules", but that is always a possibility no matter what you do.  I'd rather deserve it.

So, I suppose I will keep "prepping" and learning skills, keep trying to sharpen my observational skills, keep meditating on liberty, and do the best I can in this world in which we exist.  If you have other ideas I'd love to hear them.

.

Who should be ashamed?

Some people act as though I should be embarrassed or ashamed for expressing my support for liberty.  Isn't that backwards?

I am embarrassed for people who I see blindly parroting support for The State, it's agents, and the various programs done in its name.  I think "Don't they understand what they are saying?  Don't they see what they are really supporting?"

No, most of them don't.  And they don't want to.  It would be inconvenient or even painful.

But, I realize I am in the minority.  When it comes down to it, each of us is a minority of one.  No one completely agrees with me on anything.  And that's fine.  It's what liberty is all about- you do your thing and I'll do mine- as long as neither of us attacks or steals or trespasses on private property.

That's not a stance I can be ashamed for promoting.  I can't be embarrassed for doing the right thing.  I can't act as though it is a horrible skeleton in my closet.

Nope.  I'll shout it from the mountaintops.  Or rooftops.  Depending on where I find myself standing.

.

Through the meat grinder

Those who believe in government might as well be feeding us all, and turning us all into, Soylent Green.  Because the truth of the matter is that their actions grind up individuals to feed others.

Your life is worth only what it can do for "society".  You are not worth defending if it means "allowing" you to have an effective gun, and you can be destroyed for daring to disobey.  Your property is only yours until it can be taken and given to someone who is better connected, or who will "produce" more in the form of "taxes".  And I could go on and on with examples.

The government extremists may claim innocence.  They lie.

Each and every individual who believes in The State is showing a willingness to sacrifice YOU for the "common good".  They are showing that they value "society" over any individual; not realizing that there are only individuals.

No, this isn't me being "collectivist" in my condemnation.  If you support The State with words or deeds, then you share tangible guilt with the worst of the perpetrators.  And by "deeds" I don't mean that you fork over money because there is a gun to your head- although we could debate how credible the threat actually is right now, and whether you could refuse to hand it over without any consequences.  I'll just say you do what you think is best in that situation.

No, I'm condemning those who say "there oughta be a law", or who think more "government" is a solution for any real-world problem.  Or even those who believe that there are some "necessary" things that only government can do.  But, I used to believe some of the same things, so I share in the guilt.  How many lives did my small bit of support for collectivist coercion ruin?  I will never know, but I will spend my life making sure I never fall into that pit again.  I want no more individuals put through the grinder on my behalf.  Not even if it makes me look like a kook.

.

Eustace vs. The Thieves

A few years ago- maybe more than I thought, now that I think about it- I read a book about a guy named Eustace Conway.  The person who loaned me the book thought I would enjoy it, sensing a sort of kindred spirit I might share with Eustace.  And I did enjoy it.

Now Eustace needs help.  I'm not going to recap the whole thing- you can get some details here.

Make no mistake, when someone comes along and tells you that you are not "allowed" to use your own property as you see fit, you are being stolen from.  Even if they "generously allow" you to keep the property.  It's value to you is being diminished.  Theft has occurred.

I am in no financial condition to help Eustace, but I will spread the word and might even write the thieves if I can compose a letter that doesn't become too honest.  And if I can keep from referring to the thieves as thieves in such a letter.  I did sign the petition- I doubt such things make any difference at all, though.

Look over the details of his current struggle and see if you think it's worth your time to lend a little support.


.

Rights don't change, even if details do

Rights don't change, even if details do

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 15, 2013)

Recently a lot of anti-liberty advocates have tried to justify their opposition to the Second Amendment with the claim that it is "outdated"; that back when the Bill of Rights was written, the founders couldn't have foreseen semi-automatic rifles (erroneously called "assault rifles"). That may or may not be true, but even then advances were being made, and these men weren't stupid. You can't convince me that scientists such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson weren't smart enough to see where the technology was leading, but let's pretend for just a moment that the supposition is correct.

It doesn't matter.

Do you enjoy First Amendment protection of your religion or denomination only if it existed in it's present form in the late Eighteenth Century?

Does your right to free speech only apply to your voice, or to the words you write with a quill pen or disseminate from an Eighteenth Century printing press? Are electronic communications not protected from government interference because those are forms of speech and "press" the Bill of Rights' writers hadn't experienced?

This is why it's important to remember that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give us rights". We retain all our rights whether or not they are respected by law. The Bill of Rights only lists a few of those things the government isn't empowered to do, and therefore can't do without committing serious crimes.

Let's say that you recognize there is a right to not be murdered by government- and pretend that instead of being included (along with the right to drive and everything else a free human can do without government permission) in the Ninth Amendment, it got its own mention: the Second-and-a-Half Amendment. Our lives are different today. Do we claim that the Right to Not Be Murdered only protects an Eighteenth Century life-style and forbids only the methods of murder that currently existed at the adoption of the amendment? No! The right exists, the details are irrelevant.

The Second Amendment makes it a serious crime for anyone acting on behalf of government to violate, in even the tiniest way, the right to own and to carry weaponry. It says nothing about what kinds of weapons it applies to, who may carry them, or where or in what way they may be carried, because it doesn't apply to the weapons or the people carrying them at all- it only prohibits all anti-gun "laws".

The "conversation" about guns is over. The anti-liberty advocates lost. Now their only hope is to abandon "conversation" and use aggressive force, ironically backed with guns, to attempt to violate your fundamental human rights.

.

Don't just accept- weigh it all.

I can be wrong.  That realization keeps me from ever simply saying "this is how it is and I will never change my mind".  Well, I might say it, but I don't really believe it.

Everything I believe has gone through the wringer.  Usually more than once.

I have even questioned gun ownership several times in my life.  "What if 'they' are right, and it's a bad idea for 'regular people' to own and to carry guns?"  "What if wanting a gun is a sign of mental instability?"  "What if the presence of a gun really does put the innocent in more danger?"

The questions lead to a couple of different actions.  I begin to consider the possibilities in my own mind.  Deeply and constantly.  And, I read more about what other people have to say about the matter.  Then I take that new information and incorporate it into the mix and think about it all some more.

I have changed my mind, or at least opened myself up to other possibilities, on some big questions in the past.  It may happen again.

The thing is, each time I change my mind on something, I move toward more liberty- a stronger respect for individuals to live their lives as they see fit.  I have never yet moved away from that toward more control by some over the lives of others.

Each time I go through this process I come to realize even more strongly that respecting liberty really is the best way to deal with other people.  I realize that any "system" that ignores this, or fears liberty, is perverted.  Even if I might have once found some value in what I now reject.

If this keeps up I'll wind up an anarchist.   Oh, wait...

.

I care nothing for nations...

You just never know where something to make you smile will crop up.

I was watching an episode of "Poirot" on Netflix.  A bankster had murdered a few people, but when found out, was claiming he was too important to "the nation" to face punishment.  Hercule Poirot said something to the effect of "Poirot is not concerned with nations. Poirot is concerned with private individuals."  Awesome.

My thoughts exactly.  "Nations" are nothing; individuals are everything.  It's why every "law" imposed to protect any "nation" at the expense of the individual's liberty is evil.  And it doesn't matter which "nation" claims the individual- murder by drone is wrong.  Anti-gun "laws" are wrong.  "National security"- which invariably comes by violating individual liberty- is wrong.  Any "law" that seems to pretend that the "nation" is more important than any individual anywhere in the world is disgusting and wrong.

I care about "nations" to the identical extent they care about me.


.

Truth vs. "truth"

In "Civil Disobedience" Henry David Thoreau said "The lawyer's truth is not the Truth..."

That is the heart of the matter, because The State, what most people call "government", is built entirely upon "lawyer truth" rather than the Truth.

A gigantic pyramid has been constructed on a squishy swamp with nothing to give it stability, except those desperately trying to prop it up and keep it from capsizing or sinking.  But sink it will.  And it will crush and drag down those who don't give it space.

The wise thing to do seems to be to see the Truth, laugh at "lawyer truth", and get as far away from the top-heavy edifice that so many look to with admiration even as it dooms them.

And keep respecting the Truth.


.

Grab it when you can

I have this habit as I walk along a trail (or a non-trail).  I see a bit of dried inner bark, or a nice chunk of chert, and I pick it up, knowing it is something I may need later on down the trail.  I don't worry that I might not need it later, or that I might find some later that is even better.  I am glad for what I found and take advantage of the opportunity.

Why pass up something of value to you when you have the opportunity to pick it up?  People who worry that the price of gold or silver might fall after they bought it seem to be doing this.

Don't worry that you have traded FRNs for it, and that the price might be lower tomorrow; be glad you now have it.  If the price falls later, get more and be glad you got a good deal.

And, if you don't want to have silver or gold on hand, don't feel I am telling you that you must.  It is a part of the survival strategy, not the whole picture.  I prefer to cover as many bases as I can- you do what you want.

.

A lesson in aggression and property rights

...taught* at the park.

A couple of days ago I took my daughter to the park.  It was really too cold and windy, but she wanted to go, and since I am such a wonderful dad... but, never mind...

Anyway, as she was running around and playing I noticed a group of kids.  There was one who was probably 9 or 10 years old, and three who were in their mid-teens or so.  One of the older kids was the young one's older brother.

I had heard the older one threatening to break the younger one's bike, and generally being a bully- in front of his friends.  The younger one was protesting and finally went back to sit on his bike, and I thought he was going to leave, when the older one came over and held him in place.

The older brother ("OB") began demanding to ride the younger brother's bike.  The younger brother ("YB") was saying "no", and giving the reasons as "you broke my other one" and "I promised her that only I would ride it".

OB was getting pushier and pushier, and holding YB closer until he was holding his arms to his side, talking right into his ear, and still demanding to ride the bike.  At this point I decided the line had been crossed and I'd had enough.

As I approached them (neither had noticed me yet as they were facing the other direction) YB began crying and holding his ear.  OB just pulled him in tighter and was muttering something in his ear.

My adrenaline was flowing and I was either really angry or a little scared.  Not sure which.

I stopped, without getting too close, and told OB that it was time to back off and "stop messing with" YB.  He turned and looked at me.

He said "I'm not messing with him".

I said "Yes, you are.  Now stop."

YB was really bawling by now and still holding his ear.  He said OB hit him.  OB denied doing so, and I couldn't really see exactly what was going on as I walked over to them, since OB was wrapped around YB so closely before I intervened.

OB finally admitted hitting YB and claimed it was accidental, and said that YB "over-exaggerates everything".  I said that I had seen him getting rough and that was enough for me.

So OB changed tactics.  He said that he only wanted to ride the bike.  I told him that YB had told him "no", and that was that.  OB said that he bought the bike for YB.  I asked "Did you give it to him?"  He said he had.  So I told him that means the bike is YB's property and he doesn't have to let anyone else ride it if he doesn't want to.  OB just kept complaining that he only wanted to ride it.  I said "not unless he wants you to".

So OB turned to YB and gave him dirty looks and started in with "see what you started?" and that sort of thing.  No personal responsibility for his own actions.

OB went back to his friends and YB followed at a safe distance.  OB kept scolding and lecturing him, and crowding him, while still looking to see if I was watching.  Finally YB said he was going home.  OB asked why, and YB said "To get away from you".

I stayed at the park for quite a while, and OB and friends kept looking over at me, and later I heard them (I think) making fun of me.  I suppose the bruised ego needed some help healing.  Social standing needed to be recovered.  I'm fine with that.

(* I should say "offered" since I doubt anything was learned)

.

Law tantrums from spoiled brat Bloomberg

LawGiver Bloomberg may (or may not) be smart, but if he has a high IQ then he is a high IQ idiot.

His tantrums over his anti-sugary drink edict have made him look even more ridiculous than all his other "law tantrums" combined- and that's saying a lot.  He's nothing but a big, very spoiled, child.  (I like Joel's take on it.)

Bloomie's long history of anti-gun "law tantrums" didn't bring me to this realization.  I don't know why, since it seems so obvious to me now.  In fact I see all the anti-gun advocates clearly now.  They are all spoiled "grown" children- brats- with guns who don't want anyone else to have guns because they are scared.  They'll keep throwing their law tantrums to try to make themselves feel better.  They count on you not seeing them as they really are.

That's all any of these "laws" represent- the tantrums of spoiled brats who think they should run your life.  I think it's past time for some "time outs" or spankings.  But it is certainly NEVER time to act like these spoiled brats have any authority over your life.

.

Don’t wait to stand up for rights

Don’t wait to stand up for rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 8, 2013)

How many times have you thought to yourself that you wish others would "wake up" and realize how important some issue is? Probably as many times as I have.

Libertarian author L. Neil Smith points out that people are already "awake", otherwise nothing would get done. They are awake to the things they need to do to get through their day. Taking care of the kids; getting the job done, so that the paycheck will keep coming, so that the house payment gets made, the groceries get bought, and the electricity doesn't get shut off takes a lot of awareness. Often, it doesn't leave a lot of room for other things that don't seem as pressing.

People only think about philosophical issues when those issues get in the way of the things that matter to their day-to-day survival. By the time it matters, it is no longer "philosophical".

It is hard to get people to realize that The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is negatively impacting their lives when they are spoon fed only one side of the issue, almost subconsciously, every day of their life. Anti-drug "laws" are just fine... until your wife is dying of cancer and the doctor is too scared of the DEA to prescribe the level of pain relief she really needs. Until you get caught up in the consequences- mistakenly or not- it just isn't on your radar. It only affects "those people".

The same goes for so many other liberty-related issues.

Anti-gun "laws" don't matter as long as your heirloom single-shot 12 gauge isn't targeted. Anti-immigration "laws" are justified until your best friend- who just happens to have been born on the other side of some imaginary line- finds himself being arbitrarily kicked out of the country. Business regulations are good until your big idea dies before it gets off the ground because of all the red tape and licenses, or until your family business has to close because you can't navigate, or afford, all the "reasonable requirements" anymore. "Taxation" is obviously "necessary" until you lose everything because you can't prove you paid everything the IRS claims you owe.

These are disaster-level "awakening events".

Don't wait until the problem kicks you in the face to start standing up for liberty and noticing its enemies. Have the courage and conviction to stand up now, while it doesn't cost too much. Later may be too late.

.

Nutty for Liberty?

One of my fellow CNJ/PNT columnists wrote something about secession the other day.

He's against it- well, he thinks it's nutty, anyway.  But he suggests all the secessionists be "given" "a fenced-in section of Arizona desert — free from prickly government intrusions."  I don't think a section would be near enough room since I'd feel hemmed in by that limited amount of land even if I were alone- and how does he plan to acquire this land?  Steal it or buy it from the rightful owner?  But we'll pretend for a moment.

His vision for my future?  Well, here's what he believes life would be like inside that fence:

"...unshackled from such Big-Brother meddling as public [sic] education [sic]  bank deposit guarantees, Social Security, mail deliveries, band-width regulations, safe food, water and medicine, police and military protection [sic]  criminal laws and the pesky justice [sic] system, highways, licensed doctors and nursing homes, air traffic controllers, firefighters..."

Sounds pretty good to me!  I'd go for it! Who says only Big Brother can provide those things? If they are really needed and wanted, someone will provide them. If they are provided consensually, subject to market forces, they will be better. They certainly can't be any worse. Most of those "services", when provided by government monopoly, have just about been driven into the ground and have failed so thoroughly that only the constant threat of "the gun in the room", and the coercive prohibition on opting out to find a better way, keeps them hanging on.

And, I seriously doubt that such a free society (even if we left the fence standing) would permit "police and military protection" at all.  Self defense and militia- of course.  But not professional "Only Ones" who are paid through theft and allowed to initiate force and get away scot free.

He assumes that inside the "escape-proof, tumbleweed-lined fence would truly be a government-free, man-eat-dog, shoot-Big-Birds, survival-of-the-nuttiest nirvana" for folks like me.  Sounds like a concentration camp, or one of those FEMA camps we hear about.  Which brings up just about the only flaw.

The only problem with his suggestion is that there is no such thing as "a" secession advocate.  Some want secession for anti-liberty purposes, or just because they happen to hate a particular person who calls himself "president", but would be fine with some other idiot occupying the same chair.  Me?  I've already seceded and laugh at the whole circus act.  I need no "government" or any of its parts and pieces.  It's believers may surround me, but they are the problem, not their imaginary "frienemy".

I'd be willing to move to Mars or any other survivable (with the right technology) planet (or whatever) for just the sort of chance he's denigrating and ridiculing.  That's how sure I am that liberty really works in the real world we inhabit, and is vastly better than any other "system".

.

Sure, I'll help... LOL

All you Nigerian princes, widowed diplomat's wives, orphaned African bank president's adult children, dying heiresses, lottery winners, and US soldiers "serving" in Muslim countries who have multi-millions of dollars you desperately want to send me so that I can help you sneak it out of wherever... go ahead.  Send it to me.  You can trust me.  My Paypal donation button is right over there on the side.  Or you can change the money into Bitcoins and send it to me that way.  Just attach a note saying who you are and how much my cut is, and give me a hint when you'll want yours.

I promise I will split it with you however you want.  Later.  After everything clears and I spend a little- never any of your cut- to make sure the money is spendable.

But you might as well stop sending me the emails because they go to my junk folder and I quickly delete them (yeah, I do read one occasionally for a laugh).

Just a little advice, though... To make your emails more believable (besides the whole thing about wanting to send strangers, who don't even appear as the email recipient, vast sums of money), you might consider learning how names "work" in this part of the world, and realize that I have never seen an actual "barrister" in my whole life.

Oh, and one more thing... I am not your "Dearly Beloved in God".

Ah, the joys of automation in the scamming arts.

.

Now THAT hurts!

Well, maybe just a little.

I am referring to someone saying this about me: "He’s just not quite as radical as I am."

Someone is more radical than me?  Where have I gone wrong?

OK, so I'm mostly kidding.  My goal in life isn't to be "radical", it is to be right.  It's just that being right has become such a radical position.  I just can't imagine anyone being "more radical" than I am.  I suppose I still have a lot to learn.

.

Ground Zero!

Do you know what the above is?  It's an environmental disaster- according to the feds.  Mercury contamination!  Sharp edges!  Plastic!  Yet, it wouldn't have happened if not for the feds and their silly meddling in the market.

As I was biking around town I happened to see this broken CFL (compact fluorescent light) beside the curb.  No HAZMAT team was scurrying around trying to cordon off the area.  I was in such horrific danger but no one came to rescue me.  So I stopped to take a picture.  Should I have sent this to MSNBC so they could send a team to interview the survivors?  I neeeed to tell them how I feeeel about it.

I assume this is still there, if anyone wants to come save us.  Or, I might use my mighty grabber tool and pick it up and illegally put it in a dumpster- if it's still there- next time I pass by.

.

You wouldn't be wrong...

No one has a right to deprive you of life, liberty, or your pursuit of happiness- as long as your pursuit doesn't violate the identical rights of others.

You are not wrong if you kill a person who is attempting to murder you.

The same goes for anyone who is attempting to violate your liberty or pursuit of happiness.  For instance: no one has a right to insist on their right to molest or license you as your "price" of being allowed to travel.

You are not wrong if you kill someone who is trying to violate your liberty in any way.  The burden lies with the aggressor.

That doesn't mean that it is smart to do so when those who most commonly violate your liberty and pursuit of happiness belong to a huge gang, who are somehow permitted to decide that you are never to be allowed to defend yourself from members of their gang, and who have claimed they get to "arbitrate" disputes that involve themselves.

But you wouldn't be wrong.

Someone trying to kidnap you?  You wouldn't be wrong to kill them for their attempt.  Someone making up rules that violate your property rights?  You wouldn't be wrong to kill them for their attempt.  Someone trying to enforce some rule that violates your rightful liberty in some way?  You wouldn't be wrong to kill them in trying to stop them.

I'm not saying you "must", I am saying you wouldn't be wrong.  You will be killed by the gangbangers for defending yourself from their "brother" gangsters- that is just a given.  That's why it probably isn't a smart thing to do in the current situation in which we find ourselves.  But never make the mistake of thinking someone is wrong for killing anyone who is trying to violate their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.  If I were on a jury and you were "on trial" for killing a liberty-violator, I wouldn't convict you no matter how much I personally didn't like you if I saw that you were only defending your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness from someone trying to violate you.

I would hope to be given the same respect, but I wouldn't expect it.

.

Better than that?

I'm better than that- I'm libertarian.

So why don't I always act better than that?

I am on the right side.  There is no argument for The State or legitimized coercion and theft that can stand up against arguments for individual liberty.  No, not one.

So why do I let myself get irritated by imbeciles who parrot the statist line?  Their words are as ridiculous as anything ever uttered by the most brain-damaged cockatoo that ever managed to repeat human-like sounds.  Yet, I let them get to me.  How can I let that happen?

Because I am human, and I am flawed and subject to emotional responses.  It's one reason I rarely write a blog post and immediately publish it.  I like to be able to consider what I have written to see if I am being unreasonable and impulsive.  That may disturb you even more- to know that most of what I have written has passed my review a few times before you ever read it.

I need to keep reminding myself that I am better than that.  Liberty is better than that.  And I am libertarian.

.

Selfishness not necessarily evil act

Selfishness not necessarily evil act

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 1, 2013)

One of the self-evident tenets of libertarianism is that of self ownership. You own your life, and the products of your life.

If you didn't own yourself, you couldn't give your life to someone else since it wouldn't be yours to give. That has implications in every aspect of life, from the interpersonal to the religious.

Just as no one else can claim to own your life, no one else has any claim on the products of your life without your explicit agreement. Being born in a place, and choosing to not leave, is not an explicit agreement, taxation apologists to the contrary. To be required to hand over the products of your life without your consent is slavery. To be forced to buy products or services you don't want is theft. Both violate self ownership.

Just as you can't belong to any individual, you can't belong to society. Your obligation to society is expressed by your obligation to not attack or steal from any individual. That's it. Everyone else has the identical obligation toward one another, and when it is violated, defensive actions are a proper response.

Self ownership means that it can be proper to act selfishly. It also means that if there are consequences from acting selfishly, you accept them rather than trying to use force against others to avoid the consequences you set in motion.

Selfishness is not the automatic evil that some would try to make you believe it is- as long as you don't violate anyone else or their property. Selfishness can lead you to donate to charity if it makes you feel good. Selfishness can convince you to help a friend so that you can strengthen that friendship bond. Selfishness can cause you to be a good neighbor so that others will be good neighbors to you. That is as it should be. Even the most apparently selfless person wouldn't be if there were no benefit- physical or spiritual- for them. Sacrificing others or their property to make yourself feel good is not selflessness.

Since you own your life, it is your responsibility to maintain that life. No one has an obligation to help you, although they may want to if you have been a good friend or neighbor. Or, if it makes them feel good about themselves.

Owning your life is an awesome responsibility. It is one you can't avoid by pretending it doesn't exist, nor by trying to delegate it to someone else. It is your responsibility whether you accept it or not.

.

Fans of "Joe"

What's your favorite justification for The State?  Roads?  "Drunk" driving?  The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs?  "National defense" [sic]?

Apparently, for a lot of "liberty-lovers", it is "borders" and "protecting us from illegal immigrants".

That's just sickening.

There is no such thing as an "illegal" person.  Rights don't depend on where you were born.  Governments can't "own" anyone.  Private property lines are legitimate; "borders" violate those property lines and the property rights of the real owners.

How can a person claim to value liberty with one breath, and then hop on the Joe Arpaio fan bus with the next breath?  The two are mutually exclusive.  But tell that to those who have been sucked into his cult of personality.

Sorry, but if you think of some people as "less than" because of where they were born, or because of the counterfeit "laws" they violate, then you are NOT a supporter of liberty. At least not in that particular case.  If you grasp at all the "statistics" that attempt to prove how horrible "illegal immigrants" are to the economy (ignoring the free market solution of getting rid of ALL welfare, minimum wage "laws", and violations of the right of association), or if you blame them all for the aggressive acts of a few, then you are advocating a bigger, stronger State, and rejecting liberty.  Own it.

.

Stand up!

Recently I had read several things which spoke of how unhealthy sitting really is.  Whether or not this is just another health fad, I knew it was something I had been wanting to change for a while now.  Just from my own experience I knew sitting made me feel sluggish and Jabba-like.  I have never been much of a sitter, but in the past few years all my writing has tied me to the computer more than I liked.

So, on New Year's Day I decided to do something about it.  Something concrete.  I didn't just "decide" to sit less; resolutions don't work well enough for me.  I made it impossible for me to find the time to sit as much as I had been.  I took my (disabled, formerly) "laptop" computer off of my desk and put it on a shelf I installed especially for it- one that I had to stand in order to use.

This is a picture of my work space as I write this.  (Yes, I probably should have cleaned up before making it public, but I didn't.  I just shut off my monitor, stepped back, and took a picture.  Feel free to analyze me by what you see.)

Anyway... For the first couple of weeks I really noticed the difference in my legs and feet.  I ached.  I have gotten used to it now and it doesn't bother me.

I am more able to do "drive-by writing" and respond quickly to the urge to be in another part of the house.  Funny how even the simple act of having to stand up from a chair made me hesitate to go do something I thought of.  I also lost all the extra weight I had put on in the past few years, even though this is the fat time of the year.  Who would have thought I would feel better by making one simple change?  Well, Dogbert, apparently.

So, it's just something you might want to consider doing.  I know I'm liking it.


 .

Yes, I want YOU to carry a gun

This has nothing to do with "should" or "should not".  This is just my personal opinion.  But I want you to carry a gun with you everywhere you go.

I'm not ordering you to do so, so don't get bent out of shape over my wish.

I doesn't matter to me if you are a "felon" or if some local gang says it can tell you not to carry.  Those are things you must settle inside yourself.  It doesn't even depend on whether your intent is to go out and harm the innocent.  If everyone carried you wouldn't survive long enough to pursue your career.  In the long run more innocent lives would be saved.  The good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys, so any general increase in the number of guns being carried will arm a lot more good guys.

It isn't "wrong" to carry a gun.  It can be wrong to use it in certain ways.

Yes, there is a political aspect to this.  The more people who carry a gun (or even a sword, or???) the less likely it is that the thugs will dare try to tell everyone that such is not "allowed".  There is safety in numbers, because there is power in numbers.  It's part of the reason that no large-scale gang of thugs has yet completely criminalized tobacco.  It is too common.  Call it "collectivism" if you want, but people coming together, voluntarily, to fight off a common threat is part of the benefit of being human.

How many cops would be willing to tackle and kick pregnant women in a public place if they could see, or just knew, that everyone around was armed?  How many peaceable people who happen to be "open carrying" would be attacked by cops if almost everyone around was known or suspected to be armed?

But, just like the way tobacco is being incrementally demonized, possibly on the way to prohibition, guns are becoming an "oddity" in some places.  Incrementalism has made the sight of a gun on the hip rare in far too many places.  It has made it unlikely that a mugger will face a target who is carrying concealed.  By seeming to agree, through your actions, that carrying a weapon is "extreme" you fall right into the hands of the anti-liberty bigots.  That would bother me.  By allowing guns to be incrementally pushed out of sight it is making it easier for the thugs to make up more severe rules, and get away with it, which will make the sight of guns even less common.  You may not care about this political action, but it is affecting real people and costing lives.

The non-political side of this is that I have lived in armed camps, and they are wonderfully peaceful.  (I'm not talking about an armed camp in a time of war; during a time of war the "camp" will be armed whether you like it or not, but the arms may be mostly in the hands of the bad guys.)  I am talking about the peace that comes from a "society" that doesn't beg for someone else to protect the individuals who are a part of it, and the peace that comes from being prepared to deal with the problems that might arise.  Self responsibility.

You say you don't "need" to carry.  OK.  I'm glad you can see the future, but I can't.  There are a few things that I think separate humans from other critters: the ability (and physical need) to make and use weapons, the ability to make fire, and our reasoning ability.  I believe you should exercise those at all times.  Those are the things that you can't really improvise to get around the lack of- when you need one of those things you get no second chance.  None of those things is a magical cure-all, and there will be situations that you aren't prepared for no matter what, but why handicap yourself voluntarily right from the beginning?  It just makes no sense to me.

Now, if you don't want to carry for whatever reason, don't.  It's your choice.  I wish you'd reconsider, since I want to live in a polite society again.  And more guns makes us all- except the thugs- more safe.  But don't complain that because I wish you would carry, and you don't, I am being extreme or not respecting your views.  The complaints I get from this make me think that the objectors feel guilty for their choice.  If you feel guilty maybe you need to change something.

.

A cop's duty is to die for the innocent

If we are to pretend for a moment that the ridiculous notion of having people be cops is not ridiculous, then the ultimate (in every sense of the word) responsibility of a cop is to die in place of an innocent person.

"Officer safety", including the "no more hesitation" targets, doesn't serve that purpose in any way. Neither does huddling outside while an evil loser murders the innocent at his leisure.

It is better that a hundred cops die than for even one innocent person to die at the hands of a cop.  Or under a thugscrum.

If you want to be (or are) a cop, but you are not clear on where your responsibility lies, then you are not fit to hold the "job".

No one "needs" cops, except for the corrupt State.  The reavers serve The State at the expense of the people.

Cops make it safe to be a bad guy.  They remove most of the risk of facing the real-world consequences of choosing to aggress and steal, by punishing the good people who get victimized.  Cops are the point of the spear used to impose counterfeit "laws" and theft.  Cop-suckers love them- until they end up as the target.

.

AR 15s to go

Want an AR 15 lower receiver?  Here ya go: http://defcad.org/defdist-ar-15-lower-receiver/


.

Asking the wrong questions

You know what "they" say: if they can keep you asking the wrong questions, it doesn't matter what you think the answers are.

Someone brought this story to my attention: link
The short version- this guy, Andre, stabbed his girlfriend to death, along with her two young kids, and cut out their hearts (well, actually, part of his girlfriend's lung which he thought was her heart).  Even though he is obviously insane, and doesn't seem to understand that what he did was wrong, he was convicted by a (not fully-informed) jury and sentenced to death.  He has plucked out his own eyes, eating one of them.  He has tried to kill himself and seems to believe his victims are still alive.

The State, though its spokescritter, claims he is mentally ill, but not insane, and is putting on an act in order to avoid punishment.  Horse pucky.

Anyway, I had commented that this situation was "Sad all around".

Then I was asked should people like Andre be able to "keep and bear arms"?

The question misses the point.

"Should" gravity exist? The right exists, it isn't a case of "should it" or "should it not".

It isn't within my rights to decide that for any person, nor is it within the authority of any State to make that decision for anyone.

A person shouldn't murder.  It doesn't matter what tool is used.  In this case Andre used 3 knives.  If he wanted to murder he could easily have done so with bare hands.  Any "law" that seeks (dishonestly) to restrict Andre's right to own and to carry weapons would not have affected his ability to murder.  It would only disarm those he chooses to victimize.

I support Andre's right to own and to carry weaponry, and I wish he had been shot and killed when he went on his killing spree.  This wasn't a case of too many guns, but of one too few.

.

"Hurray for Washington!"

Hurray for Washington! by By Mary Theroux

Go to the link above and read it, and then consider...

Has politics ever been anything but a puppet show?  Ignore that fact that you may have liked some of the shows more than the current one.  It's all smoke and mirrors and you are forced to "enjoy the show" at the point of a gun.  Well, how often are you really forced to participate?  Sure, you may know that certain silly individuals wearing the ill-fitting hat of government demand you sit up and pay attention, but how often do you actually get grabbed if you ignore them?  I'm finding it harder and harder to care what those pathetic control freaks shriek about.

Yeah, more people are beginning to figure it out, but politics is always about celebrating something largely imaginary and silly.

Hollywood and DC: a perfect fit.

.

Slavism

The opposite of libertarianism isn't just statism.  It isn't just authoritarianism.  Those are just aspects of slavism: the love of being a slave, or the imposition of slavery on others.

I am exposed to people suffering from slavism everywhere.

They worship imaginary "authorities", and demand that everyone else do the same- or be punished.  While some of them don't see their own chains, they enthusiastically want to make sure everyone else's chains are secure.  They use "laws" and delusions to enslave.

Until people get over the notion that some people should be "in control" of other people, and stop "respecting the office" OR "the person", slavism will be "normal".

.

Your liberty depends on their liberty

Your liberty depends on their liberty

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 25, 2013)

Liberty is not a buffet where you pick the parts you like, while trying to deny other people the same freedom.

If you claim to value the Second Amendment, the best way to prove it is to fight violations of the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. This means defending from government actions people you don't like who are saying things you disagree with, or who are doing things you think are immoral (yet harming no other person without their consent). You will never seek to use laws to prevent a contrary opinion from being expressed. You will oppose unreasonable search and seizure- whether it is called "a checkpoint" or a "drug raid".

It means coming to see that the amendments to the Constitution are not giving you permission to do what you already have a right to do, but making it a serious crime for government to attempt to violate those listed, and unlisted, rights in any way, no matter how "reasonable" those violations may seem to some people.

Even this is barely scratching the surface. Support for liberty goes much deeper than even that.

When the Constitution is wrong and violates individual liberty, courage and consistency demand that you not defend that violation. Fundamental human rights, from which liberty springs, pre-date the Constitution and even the earliest attempts at government, and can not be legitimately criminalized by any government.

Liberty is a web where every thread is connected to, and dependent upon, every other thread. Snipping one thread that you don't like weakens the thread that you depend on for your very life. Every time.

That means that to really love liberty means you will end up defending people and actions that you despise, simply because you recognize that- as long as a person is not attacking or stealing- what they choose to do is none of your business. Your liberty depends on their liberty.

This is very hard for "the right" and "the left" to do. It's easier for libertarians, but not as easy for some as it should be.

It means that you don't ask the question "but why would anyone need...?" when the truth is that it isn't about "need" or "want", but about the fact that no one has a right to decide that for anyone else.

If you are a timid person who is hoping for comfort or guarantees, liberty probably isn't the path for you. Move along; nothing to see here. There will always be someone pandering to your fears.

.

Feeling entitled?

Entitlements.  Just because you really like one, and the thought of losing it makes you angry, you can't complain that your "entitlement" shouldn't be called an "entitlement".

I heard someone complaining that Social(ist in)Security shouldn't be lumped in with the "entitlements".

Because she felt entitled to get it since she had been forced to "pay into it" [sic] for all those years.

I tried to nicely explain that the money that was taken from her wasn't being returned to her.  She was robbed to pay the ones who got the money "back then" (and to pay for the expensive bureaucracy...), and now new people are being robbed to pay the money to her.

If a mugger robs you in the alley today, but promises to rob someone else tomorrow so he can give you some money, there is still robbery going on.

I hate that people have been robbed and lied to.  It doesn't justify continuing the theft.

I suspect- although I don't care enough to research it- that the money being stolen in the name of "Social Security" is a drop in the bucket compared to what is being paid out,  "Taxation" all goes to the same place, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think it is very honest to distinguish between the different bureaucracies who receive the stolen money or where they send it.  The fact that it is being stolen is enough to make it wrong.

Since "taxation" doesn't even make a dent in the money the kleptocrats in "government" spend, "taxation" could be ended tomorrow without affecting the financing of The State.  It is only kept up for its social engineering purposes (so you can be forced to incriminate yourself) and to keep people from prospering "too much".

Look at all the "money" the Federal Reserve counterfeits every day.  Yes, you and I understand that this counterfeiting operation causes inflation, which is just another way for the kleptocrats of "government" to steal money.  There is a way to avoid the pain, too.

However, as a compromise with the people who sincerely believe they are "entitled" to "their" Social Security [sic] payouts, I would say, let everyone who wants to stay in "the system" stay in (until The End), and let everyone who wants to, opt out.  No more money taken from their paycheck in the name of that coercive Ponzi Scheme.  And, that also means those who opt out can never collect a cent from the scheme, either.  It's a good deal.

Let the Fed print up all the FRNs it would take to pay the recipients of SS.  They'll be forced to anyway, if they intend to keep propping up the broken scheme.  The numbers don't add up, because even the "honest" Ponzi Schemes (the non-governmental ones) collapse as soon as there are too many people looking for a payoff for the number of new suckers to support.  It's only a matter of time.  It is absolutely inevitable.

Then, you and I who opt out will explore the free market of money and not rely on the rapidly collapsing FRNs.  Just like we probably are doing already if we have been paying attention.


.

Nit-picking for evil

If you cite a quote, people will say "he didn't really say that".  The quote about there being "a gun behind every blade of grass" is a prime example.

If you use a statistic, people will say "your statistic is wrong".  The oft-referenced number of 20,000 anti-gun laws being an example.

It apparently doesn't matter if the information being transferred in the quote is accurate- what matters to quibblers is whether the person it is attributed to actually said it.  It's why I don't really like using quotes.  I much prefer to just speak for myself, and anyone who wants to quote me can do so.  My words, and yours, hold just as much import as anyone else's words as long as we speak of things we know.

And, it apparently doesn't matter that even one anti-gun "law" is too many- they want to quibble over whether the number you quoted is accurate, and whether the same "law" that applies to non-overlapping territories count as two or one.  It doesn't matter.  One anti-gun "law" will kill people.  One is wrong.  Whether the "true number" is 20,000 or "only" 300 (as one person tried to argue), any is too many.

If the best you can do for your anti-liberty bigotry is to worry about who first said which accurate thing, or to try to split hairs over just how much evil is OK, then your position is empty.  You have no ethical high-ground to defend.

.

Empty, meaningless words

A lot of gun owners say they support the "right to keep and bear arms".  Some of them even know that "to keep and bear arms" means to own and to carry weaponry.

A lot of gun owners also say they will refuse to comply with any attempt by government agencies to register firearms.

Maybe.

If you don't carry a gun with you as you go about your daily life, you are not living the "keep and bear arms" you claim to support.  Your "support" is empty and meaningless.

If you do carry, but submit to a "carry permit" before you "bear arms" then you are already agreeing to register your guns.  Because you have already done so.  Your refusal to comply is moot.  Empty and meaningless words.

What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding?  Do you not understand that Natural Law says you have the absolute right- simply because you are alive- to provide for your own defense regardless of what anyone else may demand?

I'm not telling you what to do.  I am pointing out that you need to look at your own life and your real-life actions to see if there is a consistency there that you can be proud of, or if there is something you need to change.

.

Comment moderation, temporarily

I'm turning on comment moderation for a while due to the number of Chinese spammers (judging by where "extra" page views are coming from) recently.

So, if you comment and it takes me a while to post it, I apologize, but I WILL get it approved unless it is a spam comment.  Disagreeing with me or insulting me don't count as spam and I have never deleted any such comment, and never will.

I'm sure this will only be temporary, as these things seem to come in waves and cycles.


.

Dorner immolation* "not intentional"?

The sheriff responsible for burning the "cabin" Chris Dorner was supposedly* holed up in, says his minions didn't intentionally torch the "cabin".  Just like the feds didn't "intentionally" roast the Branch Davidians.

But the police radios tell a different truth.

Cops already get really twitchy, and willing to break the law and faces, over people photographing or making videos of them "just doing their job".  How long until they react the same to people who hear them "just doing their job" over radios and scanners?

If your own words and actions are that dangerous to you, maybe you should recognize that you are verminous scum; not one of the good guys.

-

*Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.  You and I will never know the truth unless Chris Dorner pops up and starts offing reavers again.


.

Following orders is NOT honorable

There is no good in following orders.  None.

To pretend this personality defect is a sign of an "honorable person" is disgusting and dishonest.

Any idiot can manage to follow orders.  It takes a real human to evaluate those orders, and decide if they should be followed or ignored.  Or even to decide if the one giving the orders needs to be stopped in his tracks.

Cars follow orders.  You take certain actions that transmit orders that you wish the car to obey, and as long as the car is functional, and your orders do not exceed its operational parameters or the laws of physics, it does as you order it to do.  That doesn't make the car a hero.  It makes it a tool.

Humans should never allow themselves to become tools.  There should always be a gateway that filters the orders and asks if this order is right or wrong.  "If I do as ordered will I be harming innocent individuals or their property rights?"  If the answer is "yes", a hero refuses to comply.  A thug obeys even after seeing that the answer is "yes".  A tool obeys without even asking the question of himself, but only taking the word of those issuing the orders.

Don't let yourself be a tool.

.

Random thoughts

Sometimes I get a stack of random thoughts that I decide to share.  Maybe I will eventually expand on them; maybe nothing more is necessary.  Here they are in no particular order:

-

One thing that has been kind of fun for me has been watching some of the people I met when I first got on the internet become "kinda a big deal" in the years since then.  And, I've only been online for 12 years.  I can only imagine what those who were around at the beginning have seen.

-

I suspect the near future belongs to the copsuckers.  I hope not for too long.  But there are a majority of people who have a religious devotion and need to believe in the goodness of The State.  Even when they hate what it does, they believe if only "the right people" are in charge, things would be fine.  This will keep leading to "wacky fun", until the piper demands to be paid.

-

Not one new law is ever needed for any problem.  Never.  I have observed problem after problem, and I can see how to solve most of them without adding one "law"; they are are almost universally created by "laws" in the first place- and those that can't be solved by getting rid of "laws" probably are just a fact of life that can't be solved- yet.

-

Someone, somewhere, isn't going to like what you say, unless you utter completely empty words (in which case, thinking people still won't like what you say- but they are so rare you may never notice).  So, since that's the case anyway I would prefer to receive hate mail from those who excuse murder, theft, coercion, kidnapping, and other evil acts- as long as they are done by The State.  You are known by those who decide to be your enemy.

-

It's time to stop focusing on "laws" further violating the right to own and to carry arms.  Let's take it back to the root.  I'm against the machine gun, silencer, and sawed-off shotgun "bans".

-

In the name of "civilizing" a place, statists adopt the least civilized notions: "Gun control" and loss of property rights.

-

"Dominate the market" is not the same as a monopoly.  You can dominate the market by providing what customers want, and leaving no room for competition, but the instant someone has a better idea he is free to entice your customers away from you.  A monopoly can only be maintained with The State and its "laws".  In a free society there can be no monopoly because nothing can prevent some guy setting up shop in his garage to end the monopoly.  That is no guarantee the "established" guy won't continue to dominate the market, though.


.

Voluntary solutions the answer

Voluntary solutions the answer

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 18, 2013.)

Libertarians often get accused of blaming everything on government. Little old us, picking on big strong government? That's silly.

The problem is not government, nor is it crime. The problem is people using theft and aggression against others. To draw a false distinction between these primary sources of theft and aggression in the world is to miss the point entirely. It is to be a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.

Theft and aggression exist, and always will, so I might as well accept it and deal with it. So how can you and I survive in the world without resorting to the same tactics used by the bad guys?

Through voluntary cooperation and trade, of course. This is called "the economic method", and when this is used everyone wins, or they are free to walk away- in which case they still win since they were not forced to enter a transaction without their consent. When the economic method is used, completely free of coercion or fraud, there are no losers.

When cooperation and free trade fail- which they sometimes will because there will always be bad people out there who will resort to coercion and fraud- you survive by falling back on self defense.

Isn't self defense an act of aggression? No, it isn't. It can be violent, but it is never aggression. Aggression is the act of starting the attack- throwing the first punch- not of defending yourself or your property from others. Any "laws" that get in the way of self defense and defense of property only make society less civil. They protect the bad guys while hobbling the rest of us.

Almost everyone recognizes violent crime and theft as wrong-doing. In that, libertarians fall squarely on the side of the rest of society. Where we differ is that we make no allowances for theft and aggression done under color of "law". Double standards are rejected and no one gets a pass for their actions.

Without the human potential and energy being wasted maintaining the double standard, the real problems of aggression and theft can be dealt with more effectively.

Then the mental resources and energy that are no longer being wasted can be directed at the other problems that the universe throws at our species. After all, natural disasters, disease, and ignorance won't magically go away by themselves. That takes people who care enough to act, freely, to find voluntary solutions.

.

Bill of Rights. "Feds only"?

Even though I don't look to the Constitution as the paragon of liberty that some seem to believe it is, I still find the Bill of Rights interesting.

And, I find it funny that some people claim that the Bill of Rights is "only binding on the federal government".  Nonsense.

What the Bill of Rights did was to recognize that there are things no other person is allowed to do to you.  No matter their justification.  "Government" is nothing but people- so forbidding government to do something means it is recognized that no individual has the right or the authority to do those things to any other individual.  You can't eliminate this truth by paring a "government" down to one person or by piling people together until you can call it a "government".

No government can do what is wrong for an individual to do without being in the wrong, and no individual can do things that are wrong for "government" to do, either.  Because there is no "government"; there are individuals.  The Bill of Rights just recognizes that some things are wrong for one person to do to any other person.  But it only makes it a crime for government to do those things.


.

Statist hate

Recently I was reminded again of the mental capacity of most of those who oppose liberty.  It gives me hope- although I can worry a little because they are extremely violent maniacs who see nothing wrong with murdering those they hate- and killing other innocent people to get to their target seems to be completely OK with them.

Their "argument" boils down to this, repeated endlessly with slight alterations in endless combination, and brave new "spellings", every chance they get:

"YOU SCUMSUCKIN (censored) (censored) (censored)!!!!!  GET OUT OF MY (censored) AMERICA, (censored)!!!! YOU IS A COWARD AND AM NOT GOOD ENUFF TO SUCK A REAL PATRIOTS (censored)!!!!  LIBRAL (censored) LIKE YUO NEDE TO BE SHOOT IN THE (censored) HAED!!!!  THE TROOPS GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO RIGHT YOUR WORDS OF HATE ON YUR (censored) COMPUTET AND THEY YOU THE INTERNET!!!!!  THEY FIGHT THE TERRISTS OVER THERE SO (censored) (censored) LIKE YOU DON'T GET (censored) RPED BY THEIR TOWELHEADED CAMEL (censored)ING TERRORISTS ON AMERICAN SOIL!!!!  THIS IS WHY AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE BECAUSE OF (censored) (censored) (censored) LIKE YOU PUSSY (censored)!!! KISS MY (censored) AMERICAN (censored) FLAG!!! yOU MUSLIM LOVING LIBERTY HATING (censored) (censored)!@!!!  THE CONSTITUTION GIVES WARRIORS A RIGHT TO GO KILL (censored) (censored) THAT HATE AMERICA!!!!  HOORAH!!!!"

Yeah... Well, at least we don't have to worry about them outsmarting us.

It cracks me up that these guys consider me a bad guy, and themselves to be the good ones.

On the other hand, I seriously wonder whether the posts like that are parodies meant to make the anti-liberty bigots look ridiculous.  As if they need any help.


.

Bitcoins for me

I think I have finally got a Bitcoin wallet operational, for those who prefer this method of payment and donation.

The address is:

1BKqRWERfVU2hryZFm5R2UFQFnjU51QV15

And the QR code is:

If you intend to send me some Bitcoin, please let me know so I can see if everything goes like it is supposed to.  I would suggest that someone could send me some, that I could send back, just to see if it all works, but I would be horrified if something went wrong and the Bitcoin was lost somewhere in cyberspace, so don't do that.


.

Chinese spammers

The last few days my blog has been inundated with spam comments from (according to my Blogger analytics) China.

While Blogger is catching almost all of them, it makes me feel bad.  Here these people are spending hours copying and pasting (I assume) comments onto blogs and those comments are being trashed without ever being seen.  Not that I want to see them.

Are the people getting paid anyway?  Are they basically slave workers?

Are they aware that their spam is being filtered?  Are they working on ways to avoid being automatically detected?

The spam comments annoy me, but it makes me wonder about other things.


.

"Primitive" Fire starting

Recently I got into a discussion of bow/drill fire starting with someone.  Not so much the "how", but the "what".

I decided it might be a good topic to add here, to supplement my BrainTan Buckskin post.

In Colorado, I lived right on the river and had a nice stand of willows, some western birch, and narrow leaf cottonwood in my yard. 

The cord on my bow (a curved piece of... willow?) is braintan buckskin. It lasts pretty well unless I try to teach someone else firestarting. (I have been known to make a "practice bow" for them.) I have used elk rawhide for my cord, and if you flex it a LOT as it dries it will be flexible enough to work, and it lasts a good long time. I had one last for years, through making a fire just about every day. Probably well over a thousand fires from that one cord. Maybe close to two thousand.

One thing I found is that, for me, it helps if the bow is NOT flexible. I actually used a cow rib bone once when I didn't have my kit with me, and it worked pretty well.

I used old, dead standing, willow or similar thumb-thick (or slightly thicker) birch for the spindle. (The spindle pictured is 10.25")  I use a good spindle until it is too short to be comfortable anymore.

The fire-boards I used in Colorado were usually birch. The larger dead branches would often naturally split making it really easy to get a good fire-board just by breaking it off the shrub. If it still wasn't completely split, a whack or two on a big rock would usually finish the job. I still prefer wood that is similar in its qualities.  Just don't try to use evergreen wood (the resin in the wood lubricates, and you want friction, not lubrication, to make heat).

The inner bark of the cottonwood made good tinder, not resinous like juniper, but still easy to light. Big dead branches (or half-trees) were always falling off, and the bark would come off, exposing the fibrous inner bark. I'd collect handfuls of it and fluff it up.  The wad of tinder in the picture seems to be a combination of cottonwood, juniper, and various unidentified fibers. I have a habit of just picking up promising looking tinder as I walk, often not even thinking about it. 

The small bundle below the mass of tinder is a little buckskin bag full of charcoal from previous fires. I sometimes add a bit to my tinder nest if I sense the coal might need a little help. Once that charcoal starts to glow, which it does quickly, you almost can't lose your coal.

For the bearing block, I found a nice river rock that fit my hand, and I chipped and ground out a socket and lubed it with elk tallow.  The most annoying thing to improvise is a good bearing block (this is what you place on top to apply the downward pressure on the spindle and keep it all from wobbling around). 

I also use a square of elk rawhide to catch the coal.

I have improvised EVERYTHING in the above list at one time or another. Normally you can just tell when the wood will work.

The bag under it all is what I carry it in. It is (poorly) braintanned elk. Not shown are 6 extra spindles (one is yucca), a spare fireboard (2/3 the length of the old one), and a piece of birchbark. Sometimes I also keep an extra bow cord in there. I also have a yucca spindle in there with buckskin thumb-loops for more hand drill attempts ("making blisters").

Then you put it all together and do this:

Keep your hair tied back; bandanas and stampede strings out of the way, and keep your body over the spindle, with your shoulder directly above the bearing block and your wrist locked against your shin bone for stability.

Good luck ... or better yet: practice.

Since we are on the subject of fire, here are some easier methods.  If you have access to the right materials (a steel striker, flint or chert, and some char), you can make a flint and steel fire.  "Thank you" to one of my regular readers who sent me this good-sparking steel!

What if you have nothing but a magnifying glass (or far-sighted glasses)?

And, you can make it even easier by having some "char" to focus your lens on.  Funny thing is, the glowing part of the char is hard to see in the bright sun.  It catches almost instantly and might catch you off-guard.  Watch me burn my fingers and be amused.



Now, if you want a fire really easy, and I mean "matches and gasoline" easy, try a firesteel (from firesteel.com) and some dryer lint.  It just doesn't get easier than that.  My 5 year-old daughter can make fire in seconds this way (see video at the very bottom)- and has more than once.

There is really no excuse to be without a fire in a survival situation.  Even in wet conditions you can find some dry tinder somewhere, and you should be able to find some method to light it.  Just learn and practice.

There are more primitive, much more difficult (for me) methods, such as the hand drill and "fire plow" (really "rubbing 2 sticks together").  If I ever manage to succeed with either of those methods, I'll post the video.  If anyone wants to come here and teach me those methods, I'm up for it.

Bonus video:

 

.

"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.


.