"We need to talk..."

What is this "citizenship" thing I have heard so much about?  If you want to sell me on the idea, and get me to join up and be a "citizen", you'll have to do a better job of convincing me that it's in my best interest.  So far I have seen no evidence of that.

No, I didn't consent when I was born, nor did I "implicitly consent" [sic] because I failed to move away from my friends, family, and home at some later time.  Don't keep feeding your delusions about our imaginary "relationship".

These "services" you pretend to provide in exchange aren't good enough.  In fact, most of them are downright unwanted and disgusting.  Keep 'em.  And don't expect me to pay for crap I don't want.  Understand?  Yeah, I didn't think so.  ("idiot!")

For a relationship of this type to work, I realize there are obligations on both sides.  I'm sure you have quite a list; mine is simple, but non-negotiable.

First off, before we get into what you expect of me, let me tell you my conditions- your obligations, if this is to be considered.

First- Don't interfere with my Natural Rights or my defense of them.

That means don't steal from me, don't attack me, and don't whine when I defend myself from those who do.  And NEVER get in the way when I need to protect my life, liberty, or property- from anyone, including your hired thugs.

Second- Don't ever do any of those things to other people, claiming it is on my behalf.  It's not.  I don't consent.

Until you can abide by those conditions, we have no "relationship"- you are just a bully barging in where you are not welcome.  Go away.

... Wait... There was no one here.  I was talking to myself all along.  The State is an imaginary mental construct without any basis in reality whatsoever.  Whew!  That was close!


.

"Net Assets"- Carl hit the bull's-eye!

I just finished reading Carl Bussjaeger's book "Net Assets" and I can't say enough good things about it.  I'm sorry it took me this long to get around to reading it.

I found myself smiling on each page- it just made me feel that good.

It's non-science fictiony science fiction.  It's a feel good liberty-beats-tyranny tale.  It's just a really good book.  The only thing that would have made it better would be if the spontaneous militia gathering he describes in the book had included a few Time's Up flags among the Gadsdens.  But he wrote the book before I created the flag, so that can be forgiven.

So, go download the PDF and give Carl a few bucks or some metal as a "thank you" to him for putting forth the effort to write the book.  You'll want to reward him after you read it, so just go ahead and do it now before you forget.

I just downloaded the sequel.

.

Liberty Lines 4-4-2013

(Written for an audience that still gives lip-service to the Constitution and "government": State Line Tribune, Farwell TX.)

I love liberty.  Mine, yours, and the other guy's.  This gets twisted around and misinterpreted.  Some mistake liberty for "complete freedom from responsibility and consequences" and suggest it indicates "a lack of discipline and maturity".

How completely backwards they have it.

Freedom is only a component of liberty; not the whole story.  Freedom is doing whatever you want to do.  That can be good, bad, or neutral.  Liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate any other person's equal and identical liberty.

Thomas Jefferson phrased it like this: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”  In other words, you have no liberty to attack or steal, even if you have the freedom to do so and get away with it, because doing so violates someone else's equal rights.  You have either violated their person or their property.  Everything else is within your liberty to do, whether listed specifically in the Bill of Rights or not, even if some are offended by your actions- it's just none of their business.

Respecting liberty is the mature and responsible way to live among other people.  It is much more ethical and moral than relying on hired hands to enforce silly rules- rules which invariably violate Jeffersonian "rightful liberty"- against your neighbors.

When you ask others to violate the liberty of another person you are asking those you send on your behalf to accept all the responsibility and consequences for the wrong things you send them to do.  By doing so you are showing a definite lack of discipline and maturity.  But the responsibility is still yours, whether you accept it or not.

I, like Jefferson, prefer the "inconveniences" of "too much" liberty to those of too little.  You have chosen your side whether you know it or not.  Where do you stand?

.

"Good" is in almost everyone

You don't have to be a libertarian to be good.  There are good liberals and good conservatives out there- I have met some of both.

The trick is that they are only good when they are acting in accordance with libertarian principles- whether or not those align with the rest of their beliefs.

Everyone follows a lot of libertarian behavior in their daily life- otherwise we'd all be dead.  Both "progressives" and "conservatives" embrace plenty of libertarian ideals even though they'd probably rather ignore that fact.  But those ideals are the times when they are being the best they can be.

As long as you are not attacking, stealing, defrauding, or trespassing on privately owned property you are acting as a libertarian, no matter what you might call yourself.

The flipside is that libertarians are also only good as long as they are behaving in a libertarian manner.  None of us is perfect.

I have learned to be very skeptical when a celebrity (or anyone) claims to be "libertarian".  Actions speak louder than words, and most people haven't got the slightest hint of a clue what it means to live by libertarian principles.  However, I am willing to give anyone a chance until they show me they don't deserve one.

-

Personal note:
I had an interesting April Fool's Day.  I was super busy, and mostly stayed away from the computer, which saved me from being exposed to a lot of the mean-spirited "jokes" I see online every year.  But the universe wouldn't let me get out of it that easy.  My dad invited me to run some errands with him.  And we got stuck in a car wash when it broke down.  Stuck for around 20 minutes.  Several other "funny" things happened which included me taking a nice, painful gouge out of the tip of my thumb with a piece of PVC pipe I was trying to repair for my parents' sprinkler system.  And then I got a tetanus shot.  Typing is more difficult than usual right now, but be glad I don't text these blogs, since the injury to my thumb has made texting incredibly difficult.

.

Not a libertarian? You're not free

Not a libertarian? You're not free

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

So, you're still not a libertarian? Why not?

Let's get beyond misguided religious excuses, justifications regarding "fairness", and overblown, irrational fears.

What all these excuses boil down to- as reasons why you can't embrace libertarianism- is wanting to feel OK with having someone available to hurt other people who are not harming you.

Yes, that really is at the foundation of all acts non-libertarians are trying to justify.

Libertarianism recognizes your absolute right to self defense when you are being attacked, and to defense of your property against "takers". You can't claim you need to reject libertarianism in order to protect yourself from villains. The rejection of libertarianism is based instead upon a desire to hurt people who are minding their own business, but doing something you don't like.

It is not "self defense" when you use force against those who are not harming the innocent, but who are somehow offending you. If this is the case, don't join in. Ignore them or laugh at them. Speak out against what they do. Just don't use aggression or "the law" against them.

If you are supporting "taxation" it means you want someone else to be responsible for taking property from the rightful owners to pay for things you feel are important enough to steal for.

It isn't enough for you to contribute your own money, and you apparently don't think you can convince enough people to join you. Since you fear your argument for your position is too unconvincing to get support, you want to force others to pay for what you want through "taxation". If not enough people are willing to pay for it voluntarily, without the threat of "legal action", then it needs to go away.

A rejection of libertarianism means a recognition that everyone has equal and identical rights is not enough for you. The right to stand up for the victimized is not enough. You believe some should have "special rights", and you want someone else to punish those you think are treating someone unfairly.

Sure, some people- an increasing number with each passing day- reject libertarianism because their livelihood is tied to The State. That is tragic, but it is at least an honest reason to reject liberty in favor of slavery.

Johann von Goethe said "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes."

Shed the inconsistencies. Free yourself.
.

Opposition to the "law" doesn't mean support for the act

Just because I know "laws" against prostitution are stupid and evil, it doesn't mean I want my sister to be a hooker.

Just because I know the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is destructive and wrong, it doesn't mean I want my daughter in a relationship with a drug dealer.

Just because "laws" forbidding suicide are pointless and stupid, it doesn't mean I want my best friend killing herself.

There are lots of things you have a right to do that are not the best thing you could be doing.  I really don't want to see anyone doing anything to hurt themselves even when they have every right to do so.

Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

.

A thought

It isn't that certain things need to be "made legal"; it's that it was wrong to ever make them "illegal" to begin with.

.

Asset forfeiture? No. Theft.

Government (well, in reality, those who claim to be part of government) possesses nothing it did not steal or buy with stolen/counterfeited money.  "Asset forfeiture" is just another twisted example.

I can't make up a rule- say, I declare you can't have any dogs that are a color other than black- and then claim that by violating my "rule" you forfeit your property rights and I get to take your "illegal" dogs and other property.

And it is no more "right" when goons calling themselves "government" do the same thing simply because you have bits of a plant or a gun or anything else that they decided you shouldn't have.

.

Slavers and thieves

If you ever want to help me out financially, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

If you ever want to hold a gun to someone else's head- in person or through "taxation"- to "help" me... don't bother.

It isn't compassion or generosity to give away other people's money.  It is nice to help others and share when you can.  It isn't "nice" at all to share what isn't yours to share.

I also don't wish to benefit from slavery.

If you want to force an expert to provide me with services against his will or without compensation based upon mutual consent, then you are advocating in favor of slavery.  It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe it to be, or what you call it.  The truth is the truth.

I was watching a video the other day that was ridiculing "conservatives" for their opposition to socialized medicine.  The above points- which are indisputable if you value reality- were never considered.

The slavers and thieves are all around us.  They are pretending they are the last bastions of compassion while carrying out the Old Evils.

.

"Coexist" doesn't mean you get to kill me

I can coexist with those who worship flags; who parrot "patriotic" utterances; who pretend a State can be anything other than a massive mafia.

Life is what it is.

What bothers me is that those people aren't honest about what they are supporting.  They pretend they are The Good, and everyone else is The Evil.  They pretend their favorite flavor of socialism, fascism, tyranny, and mass murder is none of the above.

Or, they are cryptostatists and pretend they aren't supporting statism at all, when they are.

Either way, I could let them go their own way if only they'd stop trying to force me to go along with them, and pretend that they aren't full of ... "humbug".

But that isn't the Way of the Statist.  Misery loves company, and rabid statists hate to see anyone who isn't under the same delusions they enjoy.  Their slavism is too wonderful to not be "shared"- with force.  Funny, but if you have to force someone to join you, perhaps your path isn't as superior as you pretend.

I wouldn't force you to be free even if I could, but refusing to allow you to feed off of me isn't "forcing" you to do anything.

Statists wish to be left to the wolves, whom they see as their protectors.  I simply don't wish to let them drag me along.  Not without trying to defend myself.  And, that, to a statist, is unforgivable.


.

Defense of Marriage...?

My marriages failed because of ME.

Before I had ever heard of gay marriage.

I probably could have saved at least one of my marriages by doing a lot of things different; by putting forth a lot more effort and sacrifice.  But what uninvolved "others" were doing couldn't have saved them.  My marriages would have failed regardless of what relationships or marriages other people- most of whom I don't know and will never meet- choose to engage in.

So, to claim you are "defending marriage" without addressing the reason mine failed- probably the same reason the vast majority of marriages that fail do so- is silly.

No one else's relationship status can threaten my relationships, or weaken them in any way, unless I let them.  And that would probably mean I am focusing on the wrong thing.

.

You are being played

Arbitrarily changing rules to benefit yourself isn't right- especially when those new rules violate someone.  Even my young daughter has figured that out (it hasn't stopped her from trying to get away with it, though).

She was complaining that one of her playmates changes the rules as she goes in order to make sure she wins.  I pointed out that when someone does that it makes makes others not want to play their game.

As I said it I suddenly thought of The State.

"Theft is wrong, unless we do it and call it 'taxation'."

"Here, change your clocks so that you can be forced to get up early and feel sick for a month or so."

"Stop for at least 4 seconds at this red metal octagon or we get to steal money from you so that we can afford to keep stealing money from others who fail to stop 'good enough' at this and other red metal octagons."

"This gun was OK here last year, but today if you are caught with it we get to kidnap you and murder you if you resist."

Some rules were changed to benefit the bad guys centuries ago, and some will be changed tomorrow.  It makes no difference when the change occurred if the new rules go against liberty, and benefit those who want you to believe you owe them allegiance.  You know what the rules should be- anything more is going backwards.

And on and on it goes.  Smart people know they are being played.  How do they respond to that knowledge?

.

Judges shouldn't have final say

Judges shouldn't have final say  (and they don't!)

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 22, 2013)

I am frequently amazed that more people don't see the fundamental folly in permitting a branch of the government- the Supreme Court- to claim to have the final say in whether or not a particular law is constitutional. That power wasn't granted them- they grabbed it for themselves in the early nineteenth century. In the year 1803 in the "Marbury v. Madison" decision, to be exact.

The Constitution has one main purpose: to outline what the US government can do, and conversely to outline what it may not do- by not being given the authority, specifically, in writing. This shows that a primary purpose for the Constitution is to limit the government; to prevent it from getting too powerful.

Self-policing bureaucracies never police themselves very well, if at all.

Therefore, no one working for the government can legitimately have the authority to decide "constitutionality" for the same exact reason rapists don't get to decide what laws against rape "really mean".

The final say was intended to lie with you and with me; the Constitution means what it says. It was not written for lawyers, but for regular people of average intelligence. Give yourself more credit.

Fortunately we have the authority to individually nullify laws that go against the Constitution or our conscience even when the Supreme Court rules against "We the People". This authority has always existed, and has been a legal barrier against state corruption for over a thousand years. Up until the past couple of generations, honest judges actually informed people of their right and duty to judge not only the facts of the case, but whether the law being used against the accused was a legitimate law.

Nowadays even uttering the phrase "jury nullification" can get you barred from serving on a jury, or in severe cases, can get you charged with contempt by an angry judge who seeks to serve his gang at the expense of justice.

You also have the ultimate power to nullify bad "laws" by refusing to comply. Even the Supreme Court agrees, and said so in the otherwise flawed "Marbury v. Madison" decision: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." There is no obligation to obey it and enforcing it is wrong.

And, the kicker is that you don't ethically have to wait for the Supreme Court to agree with you. You have a mind, can read and reason, and you can tell right from wrong. Nullify away, with the full understanding that being right when the government is wrong can be dangerous.

--

Bonus video:

.

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.


.